Skip to main content

Full text of "Examen censurae : an answer to certain strictures before unpublished on a book entitled Harmonia apostolica, &c."

See other formats 


1^ 


EXAMEN  CENSUR^: 


AN  ANSWER   TO   CERTAIN   STRICTURES, 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  witii  funding  from 

University  of  Toronto 


http://www.arcliive.org/details/examencensuraeanOObull 


I      \ 


EXAMEN     CENSUR^: 


AN    ANSWER   TO    CERTAIN    STRICTURES 

BEFORE  UNPÜBLISHED, 
ON    A    BOOK    EXTITLED 

JAEMONIA     APOSTOLICA, 
^BY   GEORGE   BULL, 

PRIEST    OF    THE    EXGLISH    CHURCH.  -^ 

TO   ■WHlCn    IS    ADDED, 

AN     APOLOGY 

FOR 

THE  HARMONY  AND  ITS  AUTHOR, 
IN  ANSWER  TO  THE  DECLAMATION  OF  T.  TULLY,.D.D. 

IX  A  BOOK  LATELY  PUBLISHED  BY  HIM. 

AND    ESTtTLED 

JUSTIEICATIO      PAULINA. 

.  BY  THE  SAME,   -j 

OXFORD, 
JOHN    HE2^RY   PARKER. 

MDCCCXLIV. 


'Sr 


oxFüUD: 

PaiNTF.D    EY    I.    SllKIMPTON. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

The  present  translations  have  been  made  from  Dr.  Burtoii's 
edition  of  Bishop  Bull's  works,  and,  together  with  the  Indices 
of  matter  and  texts,  are  entirely  new.  References  to  such 
works  as  have  been  re-edited  since  Bishop  Bull's  death,  are 
enclosed  in  brach ets.  For  a  fuller  account  of  the  publication 
of  the  Examen  and  Apology,  than  appears  in  the  Preface, 
the  reader  is  referred  to  the  Life  of  the  Author  by  Nelson, 
whose  elaborate  analysis  of  the  controversy  is  too  long  for 
insertion.     See  especially  chapters  17,  and  41 — 49. 

The  translations  being  from  different  hands,  will  account 
for  some  slight  variations  in  style,  and  other  unimportant 
points  of  difference. 

Oxford,  January,  1843. 


TO  THE  READER 


It  is  now  nearly  seven  years,  most  gentle  reader,  since  I 
published  two  Dissertations  on  the  reconcilement  of  the 
Apostles  St,  Paul  and  St.  James  on  the  point  of  justifica- 
tion^  under  the  title  of  "Harmonia  Apostolica."  About  a 
3^ear,  if  I  remember,  after  the  book  was  published^  a  copy 
of  it  was  sent  to  me  with  remarks  written  on  the  margin  of 
the  book  by  a  divine^  with  whom  at  the  time  I  was  totally 
unacquaiuted;  some  sheets  also  were  attached  at  the  end, 
which  eontained  Strictures  from  the  same  band.  This  di\ane 
did  not  send  bis  remarks  direct  to  me;  hehad  them  first  sent 
round  to  certain  very  reverend  Prelates  of  our  Church^  to  whom 
he  sent  letters  at  the  same  time,  complaining  with  a  most 
tragical  vehemence  (as  if  Hannibal  were  at  the  gates)  that 
I  had  asserted  some  new  and  most  pernicious  doctrines, 
thoroughly  opposed  to  the  decrees  of  the  English  and  all  the 
reformed  Churches;  and  he  urged  the  reverend  fathers  to 
oppose  themselves  at  once  with  all  their  authority  to  so  grave 
and  so  enormous  an  offence.  One  of  them  (the  very  reverend 
Father  and  Lord  William  Nicholson,  late  Bishop  of  Glou- 
cester,  to  whom  I  had  dedicated  my  Dissertations)  at  last 
sent  me  the  book  covered  with  marginal  notes,  together  with 
the  papers  added  at  the  end. 

I  read  through  the  Strictures,  and,  a  few  months  after, 
w^rote  (at  spare  hours,  and  as  other  business  would  allow)  an 
answer  to  them,  (which  I  now  publish,)  for  the  inspection  of 
the  reverend  Prelate  before  mentioned,  and  others  to  whom  he 
might  think  fit  to  shew  it.  I  wrote  them,  as  usual  at  first,  in 
haste,  and  in  characters  that  I  could  afterwards  scarcely  read 
myself  without  the  aid  of  memory,  and  I  could  not  immedi- 
ately  bring  myself  to  undertake  the  task  of  copying  them 
morc  legibly,  (no  sort  of  work  is  so  wearisomc  to  me,)  espe- 

=>  [Charles  Gataker.     Viel.  Life,  p.  91.] 
b2 


\ail  TO  THE  READER. 

cially  as  the  reverend  Bishop  by  no  means  urged  it^  often 
saying  that  lie  did  not  think  much  of  tlie  Stiictures,  and  I 
was  at  the  time  engaged  in  other  studies.  Not  long  after,  that 
holy  Prelate,  my  beloved  patron  and  protector,  departed  this 
life  for  the  home  of  the  blessed^  after  whose  death  I  gave  up 
all  thoughts  of  copyiug  out  my  papers,  still  less  did  I  think 
of  Publishing  them. 

However,  a  year  ago  and  more,  a  book  came  out  by  the 
reverend  Thomas  Tully,  D.D.,  with  the  title  '^  Justificatio 
Paulina/^  directed  expressly  against  me;  and  on  some  of 
my  friends,  pious  and  learned  men,  repeatedly  urging  me 
to  pubHsh  some  answer  to  it,  I  began  at  length  to  think 
afresh  of  copying  out  and  finishing  the  neglected  papers.  I 
found,  in  fact,  that  if  you  take  away  from  the  Doctor^s  book 
the  declamatory  part,  together  with  a  short  Dissertation 
annexed  on  St.  Paul's  meaning  in  his  seventh  chapter  to  the 
Romans,  there  would  be  scarce  any  thing  left  that  had  not 
been  already  answered  in  the  Examination  of  the  Strictures  : 
so  I  thought  it  better  to  put  forth  the  Examen  first,  then  to 
subjoin  an  Apology  in  answer  to  the  declamation  of  the 
reverend  gentleman,  comprising  an  answer  at  the  same  time 
to  the  annexed  Dissertation.  That  the  Apology  did  not 
appear  for  so  long,  nor  until  after  the  death  of  Dr.  Tally, 
against  whom  it  is  put  forth,  was  owing  partly  to  my  long 
doubting  whether  I  should  give  an  answer  at  all,  partly  to 
the  tediousness  of  copying  out  the  Examen,  which  I  thought 
it  best  to  prefix,  and  partly  and  principally  to  the  waste  of 
time  by  the  printers  in  bringing  out  the  Examen.  In  truth, 
I  had  Httle  pleasure  in  combating  with  the  dead,  still  less  in 
triumphing  over  thcir  ashes ;  a  species  of  barbarity  one  most 
shrinks  from.  Accordingly,  as  soon  as  I  heard  of  the  death 
of  the  reverend  gentleman,  unwilling  to  be  severe  on  the 
departed,  I  crased  many  personal  remai'ks  against  him, 
(tliough  they  were  true,  and  to  some  of  my  friends  seemed 
absolutely  necessary,  yet)  I  had  them  erased  from  the  sheets 
of  the  Apology  which  were  not  yet  printed :  more  I  would 
gladly  have  erased,  could  it  have  been  done  without  injury 
(not  to  myself,  but)  to  truth.  That  sentence  of  Basil,  Epist. 
[Vol.  üL  63.  to  the  Neocsesarienses,  was  before  me:  "We  must  answer 
Kp.207!]    calumnies,  not  that  we  may  avenge  ourselves  by  the  contra- 


TO  THE   READER.  IX 

diction,  but  that  we  may  hinder  a  road  being  paved  for  false- 
hood,  and  extricate  tliose  who  have  been  deceived  from  barm- 
ful  error." 

I  must  not  omit  to  say  that  the  Appendix  to  the  Exami- 
nation  of  Stricture  XVII,  was  written  lately,  or  rather 
copied  from  other  papers  of  mine,  and  inserted  there  to 
answer  tbe  objections  of  Mr.  Truman,  who  published  a  book 
against  me,  in  Enghsh,  entitled,  "An  Attempt  to  correct  some 
Opinions  that  are  gaining  ground  contrary  to  the  Doctrine  of 
the  Church  of  England."  Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to 
read  attentively  the  Appendix,  together  with  my  answers  to 
Strictures  XVIII — XXIII,  and  compare  them  with  Mr.  Tru- 
man's  book,  will,  unless  I  am  much  mistaken,  see  clearly  that 
the  grounds  of  bis  book  are  thoroughly  disproved.  If,  how- 
ever,  I  am  given  to  understand  that  pious  and  learned  men 
demand  a  fuUer  refutation  of  bis  objections,  I  have  one  ready, 
and  will  presently  lay  it  before  them. 

As  to  the  bulk  to  which  my  defence  hath  grown,  I  regret 
it,  but  knew  not  how  to  avoid  the  inconvenience,  for  from  the 
number  of  objections  which  my  opponents  strongly  urged 
against  the  truth  which  I  am  defending,  I  must  either  have 
observed  a  total  silence,  or  said  not  a  little  in  retiirn  :  however, 
of  the  points  which  I  answer,  if  there  are  any  wliich  the  more 
learned  of  my  readers  think  comparatively  of  little  moment, 
and  consequently  scarcely  worth  refuting,  they  may  pass 
them  by  altogether,  while  I  would  wish  them  to  remember 
that  no  small  portion  of  my  readers  will  perchance  be  those 
to  whom  the  smallest  points  may  create  great  difficulty,  and 
their  difficulties  I  would  regard  at  the  expense  of  my  estima- 
tion  with  readers  of  more  fastidious  nicety. 

While  this  volume  was  in  the  press  the  Animadversions  of 
Mr.  John  Tombes  of  Bewdley,  against  the  Harmony,  appeared : 
a  work,  in  which  the  self-confidence  of  the  author  seems  so 
much  to  vie  with  bis  ignorance,  that  it  is  difficult  to  say  which 
is  the  greater.  He,  however,  need  not  fear  "the  horns  and 
stamping  of  the  Bull^,"  (such  is  his  wit,  which  foreigners 
will  scarcely  understand,  Englishmen  will  smile  at,)  since  the 
Bull  has  long  since  learnt  to  despise  all  such  barking  animals. 
But  to  be  serious  on  a  serious  subjcct,  I  cannot  but  pity  a 

"  P.  81.  andp.  226. 


TO  THE   READER. 


msTL,  who,  while  he  is  so  imfortunately  curious  in  otlier 
people's  busiuess,  has  neglected,  so  mauy  years,  thoiigh  often 
refiited  by  learued  men,  to  re^iew  and  retract  what  he  has 
written  so  Tvantonly  against  the  practice  of  Infant  baptism, 
every  Tvhere  received  in  the  Catholic  Church.  I  do  from  my 
heart  pray  that  he  may  at  length  look  to  bis  own  case,  and 
seriously  reflect  how  gi'eatly  he  has  promoted  by  his  -svritings 
the  Avicked  schism  and  heresy  of  the  Anabaptist  party  in 
England,  and  repent  timely  and  worthily  of  so  grievous  a  sin. 
I  have  ouly  now  to  ask  thee,  benevolent  reader,  in  reading 
and  deciding  on  these  writings,  to  lay  aside  prejudice  and 
party  feehng,  and  to  exercise  the  candour  that  befits  a 
Christian.     Farewelh 


INDEX  OF 


TITLES  AND  MATTER  IN  THE  EXAMEN. 


PREFACE  OF  THE  CENSURER,  WITH  THE  EXA.MINATION  OF  IT. 
(Pago  1.) 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  I. 

(Page  5.) 

It  is  proved  against  the  Censurer  by  many  arguments,  that  it  is  far  inore  reason- 
able  to  Interpret  St.  Paul  from  St.  James,  than  St.  James  from  St.  Paul. 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  II. 

(Page  15.) 

The  expression  '  perfected  faith,'  is  defended  against  the  Censurer. — The  question, 
Whether  love  is  rightly  said  to  be  the  form  of  justifying  faith,  is  discussed  at 
length. 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  III. 

(Page  23.) 

The  question,  Whether  the  notion  of  Gospel  justification  necessarily  includcs 
the  Imputation  of  reward,  or  the  acceptance  of  a  man  to  etemal  life  and  salva- 
tion,  is  sifted ;  or,  in  other  words,  Whether  the  conferring  a  right  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  properly  an  act  of  Gospel  justification, 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  IV. 

(Page  31.) 

It  is  shewn  that  in  attributing  to  faith  the  Operation  causing  righteousness,  the 
Censurer  teaclies  a  new  and  dangerous  doctrine. 


xii  COXTEXTS. 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  V. 

(Page  32.) 
Onr  Paraphrase  of  the  passage  Acts  x.  34,  35,  is  defended  against  the  Censurer. 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  VI. 

(Page  36.) 

Our  interpretation  of  the  passage  1  Pet.  i.  2,  is  supported  hy  the  authority  of 
Erasmus,  Estius,  and  even  Calvin. 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  VII. 

(Page  37.) 

The  question  between  the  author  of  the  Harmony  and  the  Censurer  is  reduced  to 
these  four  heads;  Ist,  "Whether  there  be  any  assignable  condition,  properly  so 
called,  of  the  Gospel  covenant,  which  is  not  also  a  condition  of  Gospel  justifi- 
cation.  2ndly,  Whether,  it  being  granted  that  the  condition  of  the  Gospel 
covenant,  and  of  Gospel  justification  may  be  different,  it  is  not  yet  certain  that 
faith  and  repentance  are  conditions  of  one  and  the  same  benefit,  viz.  of  Gospel 
justification.  Srdl)-,  AVhether  forgiveness  of  sins  comes  into  the  very  notion  or 
definition  of  Gospel  justification,  or  whether  the  notion  of  Gospel  justification 
necessarily  includes  forgiveness  of  sins.  4tlil}-,  ^Vhether,  it  being  granted  that 
forgiveness  of  sins  is  not  necessarily  included  in  the  notion  of  Gospel  justifica- 
tion, it  is  not  yet  certain  that  the  condition  of  both  benefits,  viz.  Gospel  for- 
giveness and  Gospel  justification,  is  exactly  the  same. — The  questions  are 
stated  in  Order  and  discussed  separately. 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  VIII. 

(Page  59.) 

The  internal  works  of  repentance  are  distinguished  from  the  externa!,  and  it  is 
proved  against  the  Censurer,  that  the  internal  works  of  repentance  are  abso- 
lutely  necessary  to  the  first  justification. 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  IX. 

(Page  60.) 
The  instriunentality  of  faith  in  the  matter  of  justification  is  treated  of  at  length. 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  X. 

(Page  69.) 

Tlie  mistake  of  the  Censurer  in  interpreting  my  words, '  Most  of  our  theologians,' 
(Harm.  I,  Diss.  ÜL  3,)  is  pointed  out. 


CONTENTS.  xm 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XI. 
WITH  OBSERVATIONS. 

(Page  71.) 

The  opinion  of  the  Censurer  on  the  Imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  is 
shewn  to  he  ahsurd  and  even  dangerous.  The  Imputation,  which  he  defends, 
Ist,  Cannot  agree  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins  on  God's  part.  2ndly,  It  is 
entirely  incompatible  with  the  necessary  requirement  of  repentance  on  our  part. 
3rdly,  It  takes  away  also  all  necessity  even  of  faith,  for  the  obtaining  justifica- 
tion :  and  if  it  he  allowed,  it  foUows  necessarily  that  the  justification  of  a  man  is 
prior  to  his  faith.  4thly,  and  lastly,  It  entirely  overtums  the  CathoUc  doctrine 
of  the  universal  propitiation  made  hy  Christ' s  death  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
World,  on  which  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  rests.  The  passages  of  Scripture 
which  are  usually  adduced  for  that  imputation  are  answered.  It  is  proved 
that  no  inherent  righteousness,  properly  so  called,  is  acknowledged  by  the 
Censurer. 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XII. 

(Page  90.) 

Our  argument  against  the  Solifidians,  "Whoever  is  justified  by  God  through 
Christ,  is  acquitted  by  the  law  of  Christ ;  but  by  faith  alone,  without  works,  no 
one  is  acquitted  by  the  law  of  Christ,"  &c.,  is  vindicated  from  the  exceptions 
and  cavils  of  the  Censurer. 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XIII. 

(Page  102.) 

The  opinion  of  the  Censmer,  asserting  that  the  primary  act  or  formal  cause  of 
justifjäng  faith  is  trust,  strictly  so  called,  is  fully  refuted. — The  true  and 
Catholic  doctrine  of  Christian  faith  and  trust  is  set  forth  in  four  clear  theses 
or  conclusions. 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XIV. 

(Page  124.) 

An  argument  of  ours  is  supported  against  the  Censurer,  which  is  drawn  from  that 
proceeding  of  God  by  which  He  will  judge  all  men  in  the  last  day,  which  is  as 
follows :  As  every  man  will  be  judged  by  God  in  the  world  to  come,  just  in 
the  same  way  he  is  justified  by  God  in  this  life  :  but  by  works  (not  by  faith 
only)  every  one  will  be  judged  by  God  in  the  world  to  come  :  therefore,  &c. — 
It  is  shewn  that  the  distinction  of  the  Censurer  between  a  right  to  a  thing, 
and  a  right  in  a  thing,  as  far  as  it  is  applicable  to  this  question,  is  frivolous 
and  empty. 


xiv  CONTENTS. 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XV. 

(Page  135.) 

Placaeus"  and  the  Censurer's  System  of  reconciling  the  Apostles  St.  James  and 
St.  Paul  is  examined  more  accui-ately,  and  compared  with  our  own. 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XVI. 

(Page  145.) 

Our  doctrine,  that  the  faith  to  which  justification  is  attributed  in  the  Scriptures 
is  taken  in  a  complex  sense,  and  embraces  hope,  love,  and  good  works,  is 
defended  against  the  Censurer.  A  remarkable  passage  of  Huldrych  Zuiiiglius 
is  adduced  for  this  doctrine. 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XVII. 

(Page  155.) 

It  is  sliewn  how  absurd  the  Censurer's  answer  is  to  our  arguments  concerning  a 
law  of  perfect  obedience.  (Harm.  II.  Diss.  vii.) 


APPENDIX  TO  STRICTURE  XVII. 

(Page  158.) 

The  question,  Whether  God  has  ever  imposed  a  law  of  most  absolute  virtue  on 
the  posterity  of  fallen  Adam,  is  treated  at  length. — The  state  of  the  question  is 
explaiiied. — The  true  and  Catholic  doctrine  on  this  question  is  set  forth  in 
seven  theses. 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XVIII. 

(Page  183.) 

The  quotation  from  the  pseudo-Ambrose,  cited  by  the  author  of  the  Harmony,  is 
defended  against  the  Censurer  by  testimonies  from  the  real  St.  Ambrose,  and 
St.  Augustine. 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XIX. 

(Page  184.) 

It  is  proved  by  many  arguments,  that  the  Apostle,  when  he  denies  that  a  sinner 
can  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses,  does  not  use  this  argument,  that  that  law 
demands  the  most  perfect  and  absolute  virtue,  such  as  no  one,  not  even  by  the 
grace  of  God  promised  in  the  Gospel,  can  perform,  as  a  condition  of  justifica- 
tion: but  rests  it  quite  on  another  ground,  viz.  that  in  that  law  (ander  the 
View  in  which  it  is  considered  by  him)  no  true  justilication  at  all,  or  forgive- 
ness  of  sins,  which  looks  beyond  this  life,  is  grantjed  on  any  condition. 


CONTENTS.  XV 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XX. 

(Page  200.) 

The  reasonings  of  the  Censiirer  against  what  is  alleged  in  tlie  Harmony,  in  ex- 
plaining  another  argument  of  tlie  Apostle,  drawn  from  the  inability  of  the 
Mosaic  law  to  deliver  a  man  from  the  dominion  of  sin. 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XXL 

(Page  204.) 

The  assertion  of  the  author  of  the  Harmony,  that  the  law  of  Moses,  in  that  it 
promised  nothing  beyond  this  life,  could  not  produce  in  men  an  ardent,  con- 
stant,  unwearied  pursuit  of  virtue,  is  vindicated  from  the  Censurer's  cavils. — 
It  is  shewn  that  the  oj)inion  that  eternal  life  is  promised  in  the  Old  Testament, 
was  condemned  of  old  hy  Catholics  in  Pelagius. 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XXII. 

(Page  211.; 

The  assertion  of  the  author  of  the  Harmony,  that  the  law  of  Moses,  in  that  it 
contained  temporal  promises  and  threats  only,  was  calculated  to  engender  in 
men  a  low  and  mean  spirit  and  disposition,  and  one  wholly  foreign  to  true  and 
genuine  piety,  is  explained  and  defended  by  the  authority  of  St.  Augustine, 
and  even  the  Apostie  St.  Paul. — An  objection  is  met. 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XXIII. 

(Page  215.) 

It  is  proved,  by  the  plainest  argument,  that  the  author  of  the  Harmony  acknow- 
ledges  the  true  and  genuine  sense  of  the  English  Church  in  the  Eleventh 
Article. — The  sense  which  the  Censurer  affixes  to  the  Article,  is  rejected  as 
diametrically  opposed  not  only  to  the  Interpretation  given  by  the  Church  of 
England  herseif,  but  also  to  Holy  Scripture  and  right  reason. 

EPILOGUE. 

(Page  222.) 


INDEX  OF 


TITLES  AND  MATTER  IN   THE  APOLOGY. 


PREFACE. 

(Page  225.) 

SECTION  I. 

ON  THE  TITLE  OF  THE  BOOK. 

(Page  228.) 

The  iiividious  Charge  of  religion  being  innovated  on,  with  which  Dr.  Tully  in  the 
title  of  his  book  wished  to  crush  bis  opponents,  removed.  Populär  cbarges  of 
Popery  and  Socinianism,  with  which  he  taunts  those  whom  he  calls  Innovators, 
tbroughout  his  book,  clearly  refuted. 


SECTION  II. 

ON  THE  PREFACE  OF  THE  BOOK. 

(Page  243.) 

Dr.  Tully's  rhetoric,  in  the  very  beginning  of  his  book,  irrelevant.  Dr.  Tully 
undeservedly  blames  those  who  thought  they  ought  to  abstain  from  the  contro- 
versy  which  he  himself  is  carrying  on  with  such  zeal  against  the  author  of  the 
Harmony.  The  great  things  of  Divine  truth,  for  which  Dr.  Tully  considers 
persons  should  so  earnestly  contend,  are  partly  niere  trivial  distinctions,  and 
partly  peniicious  doctrines,  dreadful  to  Christian  ears.  Tragic  discourse  of 
Dr.  Tully,  which  he  thunders  against  the  Harmonist  and  the  rest  of  his  adver- 
Baries,  refuted.  Dr.  Tully  declares  in  vain  that  he  has  entered  the  lists  of  this 
controversy  unwillingly.  He  does  not  observe  the  law  that  he  himself  lays 
down  for  his  adversaries. 


CONTENTS.  XVll 


SECTION  III. 

(ON  THE  FIRST  CHAPTER.) 

STATE  OF  THE  QUESTION. 


(Page  275.) 

State  of  the  question  badly  defined  by  the  Doctor.     True  State  of  the  question 
clearly  explained. 


SECTION  IV. 

(ON  THE  SECOND  CHAPTER.) 

ON  THE  OPINION  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

(Page  263.) 

Dr.  Tully  falsely  attributes  to  the  author  of  the  Harmony,  that  he  had  written 
that  most  of  the  Fathers  before  Augustine,  went  on  his  side  for  the  righteous- 
ness  of  works.  The  author  of  the  Harmony  willingly  appeals  to  the  tribunal 
of  the  Fathers.  This  to  be  stated  generally,  concerning  the  Fathers,  namely, 
that  in  all  those  places  where  they  teach  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  only, 
they  are  not  speaking  of  faith  as  a  single  virtue,  but  of  faith  in  its  complex 
sense,  or  oi  fides  formata,  as  it  is  opposed  (1.)  to  extemal  works,  or  to  the  actual 
righteousness  of  works ;  or  (2.)  to  works  of  the  natural  law,  done  before  and 
without  the  knowledge,  faith,  and  grace  of  the  Gospel ;  or  (3.)  to  works  of  the 
Mosaic  law;  or  lastly,  to  ^meritorjous  works  of  whatever  kind.  The  testimo- 
nies  of  Irenseus,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Hilary,  Basil  the  Great,  Ambrose,  Chrysos- 
tom,  Augustine,  severally  answered. 


SECTION  V. 

(ON  THE  THIRD  CHAPTER.) 

ON  THE  JUDGMENT  OF  THE  CHURCJI  OF  ENGLAND. 
(Page  248.) 

Threefold  dishonesty  of  Dr.  Tully  noted  ;  namely,  his  not  quoting  the  decree  of 
the  Church  of  England  in  the  Eleventh  Article,  as  it  Stands ;  his  being  wholly 
silent  on  that  more  difiuse  explanation  of  the  Article,  contaLned  in  the  Homily 
on  Salvation,  to  which  the  Church,  in  the  Article  itself,  refers  her  sons  :  lastly, 
his  referring  the  reader  to  certain  scraps  of  the  Homily,  and  those  not  faithfuUy 
translated  by  him,  and  wretchedly  distorted  by  his  interpretations.  Passages 
adduced  from  the  Homily  on  Salvation  answered.  Our  own  explanation  of  the 
Article  confirmed  by  an  illustrious  testimony  of  the  very  illustrious  divine, 
Richard  Field. 


jinn  coxTEXTs. 

SECTION  VI. 

(ON  THE  FOURTH  CHAPTER.) 

ON  THE  JUDGMENT  OF  FOREIGN  CHURCHES,  CALLED 
REFORMED. 

(Page  291.) 

The  assertion  of  the  author  of  the  Harmony  that  all  the  Confessions  of  the  re- 
fornied  Churches,  or  at  least  of  the  first  and  best  of  them,  are  on  his  side,  de- 
fended  against  Dr.  Tully.  Dr.  Tully  in  vain  blames  the  author  of  the  Har- 
mony, for  saying  that  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  was  the  most  celebrated  of 
all  the  reformed  Confessions,  and  that  the  first  authors  of  our  Reformation  had 
followed  or  imitated  that  Confession.  It  is  proved  against  Dr.  Tully,  that  the 
divines  of  Augsburg  taught  that  true  repentance  is  altogether  necessary  for  a 
man's  justification.  The  passage  quoted  by  the  author  of  the  Harmony,  from 
the  Confession  of  Wurtembiirg,  explained.  The  words  of  the  noble  Confession 
of  Strasburg  vindicated  from  Dr.  TuUy's  untrue  interpretation  of  them. 

SECTION  VII. 
BEING  AN  APPENDIX  TO  THE  PRECEDING  SECTIONS. 

(Page  301.) 

Aecusation  of  heterodoxy  retorted  on  the  Doctor.  It  is  shewn  that  Dr.  Tully  in 
certain  very  important  points  of  Christian  doctrine,  is  altogether  at  variance 
with  the  clear  definitions  of  the  English,  and  other  of  the  better  reformed,  and 
so  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Four  of  his  uncatholic  dogmas  are  specially  noted  : 
namely,  (1.)  That  repentance  or  true  contrition  for  sin  is  in  no  degree  neces- 
sary for  obtaining  the  first  justification.  (2.)  That  the  continuation  or  pre- 
servation  of  our  justification  already  obtained  by  faith  only,  does  not  at  all 
depend  upon  the  condition  of  good  works  to  be  hereafter  performed  by  us. 
(3.)  That  a  man  who  has  been  once  imbued  with  justifying  faith,  cannot  pos- 
sibly  wholly  fall  away  from  the  same,  and  perish  everlastingly.  (4.)  That 
Christ  has  made  satisfaction,  and  ofTered  Himself  on  the  cross,  for  the  sins  of 
the  elect  alonc. 

SECTION  VIII. 

ON  THE  REMAINING  CHAPTERS. 

(Page  Mi.) 
Certain  wonderful  sophisms  of  the  Doctor  are  noted.  It  is  falsely  asserted  by 
Dr.  Tully  against  the  Harmonist  and  liis  friends,  that  on  their  view,  the 
Fathers,  the  Church  of  England,  and  all  the  reformed  are  Solifidians.  Dr. 
Tully,  however,  is  fairly  convicted  of  Solifidianism.  The  charge  hc  brings 
against  the  Harmonist,  that  he  is  playing  a  part  in  Opposition  to  the  truth, 
clcarly  refutcd.  A  certain  argument  of  the  author  of  the  Harmony  defended 
against  Dr.  Tully,  which  runs  thus.   In  whatcvcr  degree  St.  Paul  rcjects  ritual 


CONTENTS,  XIX 

and  external  works  as  unnecessary,  in  the  same  does  he  admit  spiritual  as  ne- 
cessary;  but  he  rejects  ritual  works  as  unnecessary  for  justification,  &c.  The 
honest  confession  of  the  Harmonist,  tliat  the  Ilarniony  was  written  when  lie 
was  very  young,  very  dishonestly  bandied  about  by  Dr.  Tully.  Certain 
passagcs  from  tlie  Harmony  quoted  unfairly  by  Dr.  Tully,  noted.  The  whole 
aim  of  the  eleventh  Chapter  of  the  Jus/ificado  Paulina,  in  whicli  Dr.  Tully  en- 
deavours  to  prove  that  our  doctrine  of  justification  is  quite  in  accordance  with 
the  papistical,  shortly  answered.  Charge  retorted  on  the  Doctor,  and  it  is  shewn 
that  Dr.  Tully's  opinion  on  justification  agrees  very  nicely  with  that  of  the 
Papists  in  the  point  where  they  are  inost  papistical.  Argument  of  the  Har- 
monist vindicated,  in  which  he  had  proved  that  St.  James  does  not  deny  the 
sole  Office  ofjustifying  to  a  false,  but  to  a  true  faith  also,  which  was,  that  'that 
faith  which  was  in  Abraham,  was  certainly  a  true  faith,  and  not  the  shadow  of 
faith : '  but  the  faith  itself  of  Abraham  did  not  avail  to  justify  him  without 
works,  &c.  Contradiction  falsely  attributed  to  the  Harmonist.  An  egregious 
cahunny  of  the  Doctor  joined  with  remarkable  dishonesty,  noted.  Bellarmine's 
opinion  of  the  merit  of  good  works,  compared  with  tliat  of  the  Harmonist. 

SECTION  IX. 

ON  THE  DISSERTATION  CONCERNING  ST.  PAUL'S  MEANING 
IN  ROM.  vii.  FROM  VERSE  Ik 

(Page  360.) 
Dr.  Tully  prctends  in  vain,  1.  That  the  author  of  the  Harmony  has  not  many  of 
the  ancients  agreeing  with  him  in  bis  interjiretation  of  this  chapter.  2.  That 
nearly  if  not  actually  all  the  Fathers  after  Pelagius  are  opposed  to  the  Har- 
monist. 3.  That  only  one  or  two  modern  divines  favour  our  opinion.  It  is 
shcwn  how  plainly  false  all  these  assertions  are.  Besides  IrenuL'us,  Tertullian, 
Cyprian,  Macarius,  Basil,  Maximus,  Cyril,  Origen,  Chrysostom,  Tlieodoret, 
pseiulo-Anibrose,  Theopliylact,  Qicumenius,  Paulinus,  Damascene,  Scdulius, 
other  remarkable  testimonies  are  adduced  for  our  opinion,  not  as  yet  observed 
by  others,  namely,  six  ancient  doctors,  Justin  Martyr,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Marcus  Ertmita,  St.  Dorotheus,  St.  Pacian,  and  Ennodius.  It  is  shewn  that 
the  Interpretation  of  theologians  of  the  day,  with  whom  Dr.  Tully  agrees,  is 
very  far  from  the  meaning  and  intenlion  of  Augustine.  The  Greek  doctors, 
even  after  Augustine,  constantly  adhered  to  the  primitively  received  and  ap- 
provcd  interpretation  in  the  Catholic  Church.  Nor  did  all  the  Latin  Fathers, 
after  Augustinc,  receive  his  exposition.  Amongst  the  Roman  Catholics, 
Faber  Stapulcnsis,  Erasnuis,  Isidore  Clarius,  Zeger,  Toledo  :  on  our  side,  Cas- 
tellio,  Musculus,  Bucer,  Grotius,  Vossius,  Amyraldus  :  amongst  our  country- 
men,  Jackson,  Hammond,  Taylor,  Farindon  and  others,  favour  our  Interpreta- 
tion. Dr.  Tully  in  vain  objects  that  our  interpretation  is  opposed  to  the 
opinion  of  the  Church  of  England.  Reasons  for  our  exposition  taken  from  the 
very  chapter,  and  our  answcrs  to  Ihe  arguments  of  the  opposite  side,  vindi- 
cated. 


EXAMEN   CENSURJ:. 


PREFACE  OF  THE  CENSURER. 

The  specious  title  of  tliis  book  filled  me  with  desire  to  pro-  P  R  E  F. 
eure  it ;  the  desire  and  hope  of  finding  the  truth  urged  me, 
as  soon  as  I  liad  procured  it,  eagerly  to  dcvoiir  it.  But  at  the 
first  opening  of  its  pages  I  was  displeased  witli  what  met  m}'' 
sight ;  scareely  did  I  believe  my  own  eyes.  I  was  deterrnined 
at  once  to  examine  the  whole  accurately.  The  newness  of  the 
doctrine  itself  took  me  by  siirprise ;  but  the  bold  Opposition 
to  the  Apostle,  worked  up  with  such  a  mass  of  argument, 
astounded  me.  I  could  not  help  noting,  as  I  read  the  Dis- 
sertatious  from  beginning  to  end,  what  appeared  at  variance 
with  Scripture,  and  reason  guided  by  its  Hght.  With  your 
leave,  most  leamed  Sir,  I  wall  speak  my  mind  freely;  and 
these  Strictures,  my  brother,  I  humbly  submit  to  your  con- 
sideration,  and  the  judgment  of  my  superiors. 

ANSWER  TO  THE  PREFACE. 

§  1.  It  was  not  for  you,  my  Censurer,  to  reproach  me  with 
the  specious  title  of  my  book,  when  you  have  lately  published 
a  little  tract  on  the  same  subject  (few  certainly  are  its  pages, 
and  narrow  enough  its  iimits,  so  small  that  scareely  have  you 
room  to  touch  on  all  the  cliief  difficulties  of  the  question,  far 
less  to  explain  them  as  the  subject  deserves)  which  you  have 
embellished  with  nearly  the  same  title.  Which  of  us  has 
played  upon  the  reader  with  a  specious  title,  I  would  willingly 
refer  to  an  impartial  judge. 

§  2.  I  cannot  but  wonder  what  caused  you  at  the  first  outset 
of  your  Strictures  to  make  so  much  noise  about  a  harmless 
writing.  At  the  first  opening  of  its  pages  you  say  you  found 
something  that  displeased  you;  you  scareely  believed  your 
own  eyes :  when  you  had  read  the  book  through  attentively, 

RIII.I..  B 


2  Ohject  of  the  Harmonia  Apostolica. 

p  R  E  F.  Tou  were  astounded.  Heavens  !  what  have  I  done  ?  wliat 
have  I  taught?  what  monstrosity  does  the  book  bear  witli 
it  ?  The  aim,  the  object  of  the  book,  was  to  shew  that  good 
works  proceeding  from  and  in  union  Avith  faith,  are  a  con- 
dition  (for  I  would  not  dare,  with  you,  to  speak  at  all  more 
highly  of  any  A-irtue  of  ours — you  who  attribute  to  faith  in 
the  work  of  justificatiou  an  eßicient  causality)  necessary  to  be 
fulfilled  in  order  that  a  man  may  be  justified  by  the  Gospel 
covenant,  procured  and  established  by  the  Blood  of  Christ 
his  Mediator.  This,  I  contend,  is  the  doctrine  of  St.  James, 
and  I  maintain  that  St.  Paul  doth  no  where  contradict  it. 
Every  where  do  I  so  openty  renounce  any  merit  in  our  works, 
that  I  scarcely  acknowledge  him  to  be  a  Christian,  who  con- 
tends  for  merit  properly  so  called.  In  the  work  of  justification 
and  snlvation  I  most  willingly  attribntc  every  principal  effect 
to  the  meritorious  obedienee  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  was  com- 
pleted  by  His  death.  This  alone  hath  satisfied  Di\dne  Justice. 
Tliis  alone  hath  rendered  the  most  holy,  most  just  God  pro- 
pitious  to  US  sinners.  This  only  hath  been  the  cause  that 
God  on  this  best  and  most  favourable  condition  hath  pro- 
mised  us  salvation,  and  that  in  heaven  and  for  ever,  which 
by  no  other  means  could  v:e  have  obtained.  Lastly,  I  have 
ever  taught,  that  without  the  effectual  grace  and  aid  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  flowing  from  the  side  of  our  crucified  Saviour, 
no  man  can  perfonn  this  condition  of  the  Gospel  covenant. 
No  anathema  do  I  think  can  be  too  hard  upon  the  heresy  of 
Pelagius.  But  what  mean  you,  when  I  recur  to  the  praises 
of  God's  assisting  grace  in  St.  Paul's  teaching,  tili  I  almost 
weary  you  ?  who  would  have  expected,  that  for  such  teaching, 
I  should  have  been  tlius  shamefully  handled,  by  a  Christian, 
by  a  Catholic  ?  who  Avould  call  a  man  for  so  thinking,  "  most 
shameless,  mad,  impious,  blasphemer,"  which  are  the  titles 
you  every  where  bestow  upon  me  ?  Surely,  no  sober-minded 
man  will  deny,  that  in  this  question  of  justification,  the  main 
part  of  my  teaching,  at  least,  is  Catholic ;  but  if  I  have  erred 
in  any  of  the  appendages  or  consequences,  (so  to  speak,) — 
(which,  however,  you  have  not  3'et  proved) — tliose  who  fcel 
themselves  to  be  but  men,  and  are  not  insensible  to  human 
infirmities,  will,  I  am  sure,  forgive  me. 

§  3.  But  I  now  answer  the  charge  of  novelty  in  doctrine 


Charge  of  novelty  refuted.  3 

wliich  3^ou  allege  against  me,  not  only  in  tbe  Preface,  but  P  R  E  F. 
repeatedly  throughout  yonr  Strictures.  I  have  no  hesitation 
in  appealing  to  those  wlio  are  lovers  of  antiquity,  who  alone 
can  be  fair  judges  of  wbat  is  oldj  wbat  new  doctrine,  wbether 
there  is  aught  in  tbe  l)ook  tbat  you  bave  set  yourself  to  tear 
piecemeal  witb  accusations^  tbat  is  at  variance  witb  tbe  doc- 
trines  of  tbe  ancient  Catbobc  Cburcb,  wbose  judgment  and 
consent  we  are  bound  by  an  express  canon  of  our  Engbsb 
Cburcb^  scrupiüously  to  follow  in  tbe  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  and  tbe  deduction  from  tbence  of  doctrines.  But 
all  is  stränge  and  new  to  you  wbicb  agrees  not  witb  tbe 
arbitrary  definitions  of  tbe  systematizers,  from  wbose  stores 
you  seem  to  ba^e  derived  all  your  tbeology.  Hence  tbe 
wbolesome  doctrines  of  tbe  ancients  you  reject  and  tbrow 
from  you  as  new,  wbile  you  embrace  new  doctrines  as  old. 
Would  tbat  you  would  learn  from  tbe  advice  of  Jobn  Fell, 
tbat  most  pious  and  learned  doctor,  and  one  of  tbe  cliief 
Ornaments  of  tbe  University  of  Oxford;  wbo  at  tbe  end  of 
tbe  Preface  to  bis  edition  of  Clemens  Romanus  seriously 
exborts  students  of  Tbeology  "  to  keep  far — (if,  indeed,  tbe 
saying^  id  verum  quod  primum,  ^  wbat  was  first  is  true/  is 
wortby  tbe  credit  and  estimation  of  an  oracle) — to  keep  far 
away  from  tbe  sluggisb  and  muddy  pools  of  tbose  wbo  would 
be  called  '  modern  Divines/  and  seek  tbe  everlasting  and  clear 
fountains,  boly  and  füll  of  grace,  beyond  tbe  credit  of  gentile 
tbeology/'  Tbe  boly  man  continues :  "  One  may,  indeed, 
expect  Innovators  to  follow  novelties ;  but  tbe}^  wbo  love  tbe 
nntainted  doctrines  of  tbe  primitive  Cburcb  will  not  as  soon 
give  ear  to  writers  of  a  later  age.  For^  by  tbis  most  certain 
sign^  and  by  tbis  most  cbaracteristic  mark,  will  tbey  prove 
tbemselves  tbe  Cbiu'cb's  genuine  sons,  in  tbat  tbey  look  up 
witb  a  Singular  reverence  to  ber  most  boly  Fatbers."  But 
wby  do  I  confine  myself  to  tbe  ancients  ?  I  appeal  also  to 
our  later  Divines.  How  many  names  can  I  recount,  '  sbining 
ligbts'  in  tbis  our  Engbsb  land,  wbo,  before  me,  fearlessly 
and  witbout  cbarge  of  beterodoxy  bave  banded  down  in  tbeir 
writings  tbe  doctrine  you  impugn,  and  bave  openly  defended 
it,  against  tbe  cries  and  barkiugs  only  of  Innovators  and 
scbismatics  ?    Take  beed  you  drive  me  not  to  recount  tbem, 

"  Collect.  Canon.  Can.  Elizab.  de  Concionator.  p.  19. 

b2 


4         FutUity  of  tlie  Charge  that  St.  Paul  is  contradicted. 

p  R  E  F.  which  I  fancy  you  -svoulcl  be  little  pleased  with,  and  reflect  at 
length^  how  many  and  ho^r  great  men  you  scatlie  in  attack- 
in g  nie. 

§  4.  jNIost  ridiculous  certainly  is  your  charge  as  to  my 
bold  contradiction  of  St.  Paul.  For  I  do  not  contradict  liim 
more  tlian  St.  James  himself,  tliat  is,  not  at  all.  I  grant 
that  I  have  endeavoured  (and  God  knows  with  the  best 
intention)  to  recoueile  the  apparent  discrepancy,  and  that 
one  of  greatest  monient,  in  the  two  Apostles'  writings;  and 
if  in  my  endeavour  to  do  this  I  shall  have  met  \nth  the 
entire  disapprobatiou  of  leanied  and  pious  men,  (which  many 
things  prevent  me  from  believing,  though  you  so  often  assert 
it,)  I  am  not  the  first,  as  you  are  aware,  "svho  have  failed 
in  the  attempt.  I  am  glad,  however,  that  whatever  in  my 
Dissertation  seems  to  you  to  disagree  with  the  Scriptures 
and  reason,  you  noted  in  the  course  of  reading ;  for  hence  I 
may  fairly  conclude  that  nothing  remains,  after  Aristarchus' 
judgment,  that  is  opposed  to  Scriptiu'e  or  reason.  Certainly, 
the  objections  you  bring  forward  in  your  animadversions 
either  miss  the  point  altogether,  or  are  supported  by  the  most 
trifling  or  no  arguments  at  all.  Not  to  mention  the  number 
of  paragraphs,  and  even  entire  chapters,  in  the  Dissertations, 
in  which  the  whole  force  and  strength  of  my  argument  lies, 
which  you  either  pass  by  in  the  most  profound  silence,  or 
touch  upon  as  slightly  as  possible.  That  these  things  are 
not  bravado,  but  truth,  they  knoAv  who  have  compared  my 
Dissertation s  with  your  Animadversions  on  the  same. 

§  5.  You  have  fi\ll  permission  then,  my  Censurer,  to  use  your 
plainness  of  speech,  and  say  freely  what  you  think,  though, 
as  becomes  an  honest  man  and  a  gentleman,  without  abuse 
and  slander,  from  which,  if  you  had  abstained  in  writing, 
you  woidd  have  more  nearly  (even  in  the  judgment  of  your 
own  conscicnce)  performed  the  duty,  which  you  profess,  of 
brotherly  love.  To  your  Strictures,  however,  which  you  have 
put  before  me  for  my  considcration,  I  have  paid  serious 
attention ;  and  I  find  notliing  noted  by  you  in  your  animad- 
versions that  I  need  regret  haA-ing  said.  However,  you  must 
not  expect  rae  in  my  answer  to  follow  you  step  for  step ;  I 
would  not  so  abuse  tlie  patience  of  my  reader,  or  lay  out  good 
hours  so  badlv.     For  how  mauv  of  your  censures  are  but 


Stricture  upon  the  method  of  proceeding .  5 

mere  calumnies  !  how  many  bare  assertious  do  tliey  contain  p  R  e  F. 
without  an)'  proof !  how  frequently  is  the  reader  wearied  out 
with  the  tii-esome  repetitiou  of  the  same  thiugs  !  aud,  there- 
fore,  whaterer  is  to  the  point  iu  any  way,  and  that  only, 
have  I  brought  once  for  all  under  examination.  Lastly, 
whatever  I  may  have  written,  either  iu  this  or  other  books, 
most  humbly  and  most  willingly  do  I  submit  it  to  the  judg- 
ment  of  our  holy  mother  the  English  Chiu'ch  ;  her  to  whom 
I  have  hitherto  devoted  myself  iu  all  filial  obedience,  and  to 
whom,  while  I  live,  by  God's  help  I  will  devote  myself. 


STRICTURE  I. 

ON  INTRODUCTION. 

In  the  introduction  of  my  book,  the  method  I  proposed  to 
myself,  of  treating  the  subject  which  I  had  undertaken  to 
explain,  as  most  convenient,  was  this : — Ist.  Taking  the  con- 
clusion  of  the  second  chapter  of  St.  James,  briefly  to  explain 
its  meaning,  and  then  support  the  truth  of  it  by  some  argu- 
ments.  2ndly.  To  take  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and  shew  clearly 
that  he  agrees  with  St.  James  on  the  subject  of  justification. 
Here,  at  the  margin  of  the  book,  you  "v\Tite  as  foUows ;  "  I 
do  not  see  the  reason  of  this  method.  It  is  unfair  that  one 
passage  of  St.  James  should  be  made  the  measiu'e  of  the 
many  lengthened  discussions  on  which  St.  Paul  has  entered, 
in  which  he  uses  vaiious,  and  those  powerful  arguments,  to 
shew  that  a  sinner  is  justified  by  faith  without  works,  opposing 
faith  to  works  in  the  obtaining  of  justification.  It  is  unfair 
that  that  text  should  be  held  up  as  a  light  and  a  torch  to  the 
writings  of  St.  Paul,  as  though  to  shew  light  upon  what  was 
more  obscure.  Tertullian  says,  '  Things  which  are  rare  ought  adv.  Prax. 
to  be  explained  by  things  of  oftener  occurrence."^ 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  I.   * 

§  1.  In  the  opening  of  your  attack  you  give  me  endeuce 
euough,  my  Ceusurer,  how  unfair  an  adversary  you  are  likely  to 
prove  in  the  course  of  the  confiict;  }  ou  ol^ject  even  to  my  very 


6  Ueasonableness  of  the  Interpretation  pursued. 

s  T  R I C  plan  of  proceeding.  How  unreasonable  is  tliis  lust  for  objec- 
^-  tion  !  for  if  I  riglitly  and  fairly  explain  tlie  teaching  of  the  two 
Apostles,  AA-liat  have  you  to  complain  of  in  my  plan  ?  What 
matters  it^  wlietlier  I  begin  my  Dissertations  with  St.  James 
or  St.  Paul,  proAided  I  do  no  wi-ong  to  either  ?  But  you  say, 
"  It  is  unfair  that  one  passage  of  St.  James  should  be  made 
tlie  measure  of  the  many  lengthened  discussions  on  which 
St.  Paul  has  entered.''  Be  it  so.  What  matters  it,  if  I  first, 
by  many  and  clear  arguments  drawn  from  Scripture,  esta- 
blish  the  conclusion  of  St.  James,  and  then  passing  on  to 
St.  Paul,  shew  bis  agreement  with  St.  James,  by  solid 
arguments  drawn  (if  I  may  so  speak)  from  the  veiy  heai't  of 
his  Epistles.  I  confess,  indeed,  that  I  think  that  St.  Paulis 
meaning  may  be  clearly  enough  drawn  from  the  single  dis- 
Haim.  coui'se  of  St.  James  in  his  second  chapter ;  and  it  was  on 
Apost.  II.  ^i^^g  aecount  that  in  another  part  of  my  writiugs  I  said  it 

Diss.  IV.  2.  .  .  *■  . 

p.  57.  was  far  more  reasonable  in  this  controversy  to  interpret 
St.  Paul  from  St.  James,  tlian  St.  James  from  St.  Paul.  I 
see,  indeed,  that  you  are  greatly  oiFended  with  this ;  you 
ought,  however,  to  have  attended  to  the  grounds  on  which  I 
Support  my  opinion ;  and  these  I  have  determined  to  repeat 
here  for  the  sake  of  the  read  er,  and  vindicate  them  from  your 
cavils. 

§  2.  My  fii'st  argument  then  is,  that  St.  James's  discourse  is 
clear  and  perspicuous,  and  his  words  so  express,  that  he  who 
doubts  their  meaning  ma}^  be  deservedly  said  to  be  seeking 
difficulties  Avliere  there  ai'e  none ;  on  the  other  band,  the 
argument  of  St.  Paul  is  obscure,  involved  and  intricate.  In 
the  Interpretation  of  Scripture  it  is  a  well  known  rule,  that 
the  obsciu'er  passages  miist  be  explained  by  the  clearer. 
Here,  either  from  ignorance  or  spitefulness,  you  carp  at  what 
I  said  about  the  perspicuity  of  St.  James,  asking,  "  Had  all 
the  learned  and  pious  men,  who  have  doubted  of  the  meaning 
of  St.  James's  words,  nothing  eise  to  do  but  look  for  diffi- 
culties, whcre  there  were  none  ? "  I  answer :  that  the  rcason 
that  thosc  pious  and  learned  men  doubted  of  the  meaning  of 
St.  James's  words  was  a  preconceivcd  opinion  about  justifi- 
cation  by  faith  only,  as  a  single  virtue,  which  they  had  drawn 
from  a  misunderstanding  of  St.  Paul's  words,  (it  being  no 
dillicult  thiug,  from  the  obscurity  of  his  writiugs,  to  mistake 


Plainness  of  St.  James' s  language.  7 

that  Apostle's  meaning,  unless  tlie  drift  of  his  argument  be  STRIC. 
carefully  attended  to).     In  order  to  maintain  this  opinion, 


and  at  the  same  time  to  reconcile  tlie  two  Apostles,  there  was 
no  stone  they  did  not  turn :  and  con^dnced  that  tliey  had  hit 
the  meaning  of  St.  Paul's  argument,  they  laboui'ed  by  every 
invention  to  do  away  the  seeming  Opposition  of  St.  James. 
Now,  barring  the  unpopularity  which  great  names  cast 
upon  a  truth  other^vise  most  evident,  I  appeal  to  the  con- 
science  of  any  pious  and  learned  reader,  who  is  free  from 
prejudice,  whether  St.  James's  language  be  not  clear,  perspi- 
cuous  and  express  ?  Certainly,  in  the  Apostle's  conclusion, 
that  "  a  man  is  justified  by  works,  and  not  by  faith  only," 
there  is  not  a  word,  not  a  term,  (to  use  the  barbarous  lan- 
guage of  the  schoolmen,)  the  meaning  of  which  is  not  most 
evident  from  the  context  in  the  Apostle's  discourse.  Do  you 
ask  of  what  justification  St.  James  speaks  ?  It  is  piain  that 
he  is  not  speaking  of  the  declaration  only  of  a  man's  right- 
eousness  before  men,  but  of  his  justification  also  in  the  sight 
of  God.  For  he  speaks  plainly  of  that  justification  by  which 
a  man  is  made  "the  friend  of  God/'  (ver.  23,)  and  by  which 
righteousness  is  imputed  to  him  by  God,  (in  the  same  verse,) 
and  lastly,  by  which  a  right  to  salvation  is  given  him,  (ver.  14). 
Have  you  any  doubt  of  what  faith  the  Apostle  is  speaking?  Vid.Harm. 
He  means  true  faith,  perfect  of  its  kind,  such  as  was  Abra-  Jj-g'^^i'^  j^ 
ham's,  (vv.  21, 22) ;  and  he  says,  that  according  to  the  Gospel  p-  45,  4ö. 
coveuant  it  is  not  sufficient  without  works  for  our  obtaining 
that  justification.  Of  what  works  St.  James  is  to  be  under- 
stood,  there  can  be  no  question ;  he  speaks  expressly  of  works 
procecding  from  faith  and  the  grace  of  the  Gospel,  or  works 
co-operating  -odth  faith  and  perfecting  it,  (ver.  22) ;  and  thus  I 
have  with  reason  afiirraed  that  St.  James's  language  is  clear 
and  perspicuous  :  and  this  is  plainly  confessed  by  those  of 
our  opponents  who  (with  bold  and  impious  presumption) 
ventured  to  tlirust  out  St.  James's  Epistle  from  the  canon  of 
Scripture.  Why  did  they  do  so?  Because,  not  weighing 
the  arguments  of  St.  Paul  with  the  care  that  they  require, 
they  were  led  to  think  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  alone ; 
meaning  by  that  expression  the  single  virtue  of  faith,  as 
distinct  from  the  other  virtuos  of  the  Gospel.  Fully  aware 
that  St.  James's  rcasoning  was  diametrically  opposed  to  this 


8  Obscurity  of  St.  Paul,  noted  by  the  Fathers, 

s  T  R I C.  their  rashly  conceived  opinion,  and  seeiug  thnt  bis  doctrine 

- —  could  by  no  ingenuity  be  recouciled  with  the  opinion  they 

had  formed :  nnable  to  untie  tbis  Gordian  knot,  as  it  seemed 
to  tbem,  they  assayed  to  ciit  it,  by  calling  in  question  or 
openly  rejecting  the  autliority  of  that  Epistle  whieb  bears 
the  name  of  St.  James,  as  I  have  observed  in  the  Intro- 
duction  of  my  book.  Tbus  much,  then,  of  St.  James's  per- 
sjiicuity. 

6  3.  "VVith  my  remarks  as  to  St.  PauFs  obscurity  you  are 

Tvell  uigh  driven  to  madness.     Thus  you  write  at  p.  57  of  my 

book  :  "  It  is  impiety  to  try  to  prove  St.  Paul  to  be  obscui'e, 

and  to  raise  and  spread  clouds,  because  you  must  have  them. 

This  Dissertation  is  but  too  Hke  the  smoke  which  arose  out 

Rtv.  9. 2.  of  '  the   bottomless   pit,    and    darkened   the    sun    and    the 

air.'"     Who  does  not  rather  here  perceive  you  breathing  out 

the  smoke  of  your  anger  and  indignation,  (look  you  to  it 

from  what  pit  it  has  arisen) — but  stay  !    beware,  lest  while 

you  are  falsely  accusing  nie  of  impiety,  you  comnct  yoiu'self 

of  real  impiety.     If  he  must  be  an  impious  mau  who  has 

called  St.  PauFs  discourse  obscure,  then  were  Origen,  Basil 

tlie    Great,    Gregory    of    Nazianzus,    Chrysostom,    Jerome, 

Augustine,  and  veiy  mauy  other  most  illustrious  doctors  in 

the  ancieut  Churcli,  all  impious  men ;  for  they  hesitated  not 

Piiilocai.    to  say  the  veiy  same  thing.     A  passage  of  Origen  is  quoted 

'*''■   ■       in  whieli  he  remarks  that  "  sonie   pai'ts   of  the   Scriptures 

UV  «x«'"    seem  not  to  have  regulär  comjmsition  and  consequence,  nor  to 

i^^sl "Iko-  foHow  one  from  the  other,  and  this  is  most  observable  in  the 

\uv9iav.     prophetical  and  apostolical  writings,  and  among  the  latter  in 

the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  especially  :"    in  which  he   says, 

"  lohat  is  Said  of  the  law  is  said  in  different  ways,  and  in  re- 

ference  to  different  points ;  so  that  it  seems  as  thoiigh  St.  Paul 

in  that  Epistle  did  not  attain  the  object  he  proposed  to  himsetf." 

Tliis  saying  of  Origen's  has  been  approved  by  tlie  holy  Fathers 

Basil  the  Great  and  Gregory  Nazianzen,  inasmuch  as  they 

made  the  collection  of  passages  from  Origen,  called  the  Philo- 

calia,  "  being  selections  of  use  to  the  studious,"  as  Gregory 

Kpist.  87.  himself  says  in  his  Epistle  to  Theodoret   bishop  of  TH'ana. 

[Honixiii.  Chrysostom  on  the  seventh  chapter  to   the   Romans,  says, 

•  P-       J  «  You  see  imless  we  trace  his  words  with  the  care  and  caution 

they  require,  and  kcep  our  eye  on  the  drift  of  the  Apostlc,  tcu 


and  especially  bij  St.  Peter.  9 

thousand  absurdities  will  ensue."     St.  Jerome  in  bis  reply  STRIC. 

to  the  eiglith  question  of  Algasias,  which  comes  out  of  tlie : 

same  chapter,  says  in  round  terms,  "The  whole  of  this  passage  [Epist. 
of  the  Apostle,  both  in  what  precedes  and  in  what  follows,  nay  p  g'-Q/]'  ^' 
the  -whole  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  is  involved  in  extreme 
oljscurities  :  and  if  I  wished  to  explain  every  thing,  I  should 
have  to  write  not  one  book,  but  a  number  of  large  volumes." 
And  the  like  of  this  von  may  find  eonstantly  in  the  same 
answer  to  the  questions  of  Algasias.     Lastly,  this  obscurity 
deterred  even  St.  Augustine  from  finishing  the  exposition  of  Lib.i . 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  which  he  had  begun,  as  he  himself  ^^^]^25. 
bears  witness. 

§  4.  Farther,  if  it  be  an  impious  proceeding  to  say  that 
St.  Paul's  Epistles  are  obseure,  (I  shudder  at  stating  the 
blasphemy,)  it  was  an  impious  proceeding  in  the  Apostle 
St.  Peter,  who  says  plainly  that  there  are  "  some  things  hard  2  Pet. 
to  be  understood  "  in  those  Epistles.  That  St.  Peter  refers  here 
principally  to  St.  Paulis  argumeut  on  justification  by  faith, 
as  opposed  to  the  works  of  the  Law,  has  been  the  judgment 
of  most  learned  men ;  and  very  satisfactory  grounds  for  this 
opinion  I  have  given  in  II.  Diss.  iv.  2.  p.  57.  To  those 
remarks  may  be  added  the  foUowing.  The  best  interpre- 
ters  agi'ee  that  the  Epistle  which  is  called  the  second  of 
St.  Peter  was  written  against  certain  impious  heretics  of 
that  age,  who  came  out  of  the  school  of  Simon  Magus; 
and  this  is  sufläciently  evident  from  the  number  of  marks 
and  hints  that  discover  themselves  in  the  Epistle.  Now 
every  one  is  aware  that  among  other  doctrines  horrifying 
to  Christian  ears  which  the  followers  of  Simon  contended 
for,  was  this  heretical  doctrine,  that  good  works  are  in  no 
way  necessary  for  a  man's  justification  or  salvation,  On  this 
point  I  will  put  before  you  two  very  remarkable  passages  of 
Ireufeus.  One,  Avhere  recounting  Siraon's  impious  heresies  Lib.i. c.20. 
he  says  that  that  first-born  of  the  devil  taught  that  "they  ^'2ij\ 
who  trusted  in  him  and  his  Helena,  were  free  to  do  as  they 
pleased:  for  that  men  were  saved  accordiug  to  her  favour,  not 
by  works  of  righteousuess ;"  whence  by  the  way  you  will 
observe  that  they  who  taught  that  men  were  justified  or  saved 
(for  there  certainly  was  no  diff'crcuce  acknowledged  Ijetweeu 
the  two  terms,  at  Icast  by  the  aucients)  othcrwise  thuu  by 


T€A.6ta. 


10      Valentinian  het^esy  as  to  the  necessity  qf  good  ivorks. 

s  T  R I  c.  good  works  were  held  in  the  primitive  Churcli  to  be  lieretics. 
^-       The  second  passage  is  where  he  thus  describes  Valentinus' 

p.'26.'edit'.  opinion  on   man's  justification  :   (Valeutinus    was   one   who 

Feuardent  j^erelv  gave  a  new  dress  to  the  Simonian  heresy).  "Carnal 
-P-  -1  ^g^  \i^ye  carnal  training,  and  by  means  of  works  and  mere 
faith  they  are  strengthened^  but  have  not  perfect  knowledge  : 
and  such  they  say  are  we  who  are  of  the  Church ;  and  hence 
it  is  they  declare  good  works  are  necessary  for  us^  since 
otherwise  we  cannot  be  saved;  but  they  teach  that  they 
will  be  entu'ely  and  without  doubt  saved,  not  by  means  of 
works,  but  because  they  are  spiritual  by  nature."  In  these 
words  of  Irenseus  every  thing  is  piain,  except  one  doubt  of 

Kia-Kianoos  tlic  meauing  of  the  words  "  by  mere  faith  :"  but  the  diflBculty 

"^'^''^'  is  easily  got  rid  of ;  for  "mere  faith ^'  is  not  opposed  to  works, 
(for  the  Yalcntiuians  derided  the  Catholics  for  saying  they 
were  strengthened  by  this  faith  in  conjunction  with  works,) 

yvüKTii  but  to  "perfect  knowledge,"  to  which  those  most  shame- 
less  heretics  pretended.  They  boasted  (as  is  piain  from  the 
words  just  preceding  the  quotation  in  Irenseus)  that  they  were 
already  perfected,  and  that  not  by  a  slender  faith,  but  by  an 
immediate  and  certain  knowledge  they  liad  attained  to  all  the 
Divine  mysteries.  However,  it  is  evident  from  this  passage 
that  Chi'istians  of  that  age,  Avho  adhered  to  the  doctrines  of 

ßfßaiov-  the  Church,  held  that  a  man  was  strengthened  not  by  faith 
ouly,  but  by  works  and  faith  together :  (what  Catholics 
understood  by  these  words  a  thoughtful  reader  will  readily 
guess :)  that  heretics  on  the  contrary  taught  that  a  man 
could  be  justified  and  saved  if  not  by  a  bare  faith,  without 
doubt  by  a  perfect  knowledge  without  good  works.  No  one 
can  doubt  that  the  defence  for  this  heresy  of  theirs  was 
souglit  from  the  discourses  of  St.  Paul;  particulai'ly  as  in 
other  cases,  without  any  colour  of  pretence,  as  is  evident 
from  Ircnajus,  they  brought  forward  the  testimony  of  St.  Paul 
to  Support  their  raviugs.  If  this  were  so,  no  one  will  doubt 
that  St.  Peter  referred  primarily  to  these  men,  when  he 
Said  that  there  were  some  things  hard  to  be  understood  in 
St.  Paulis  Epistles,  "which  men  that  were  unleai'ned  and 
unstablc  did  wrest  to  their  own  destruction." 

§  5.  From  all  these  things  it  is  most  evident  that  it  is  not 
an   impious  proceeding   to  attributc  obscurity  to  St.  Paul, 


ffOai. 


Causes  of  St.  PavJ's  obscurity.  11 

especially  in  the  arguments  he  lias  entered  into  on  the  sub-  STRIC. 

ject  of  justification.     But  to  be  brief:  some  causes  of  tbis ^ 

obscurity  bave  been  stated  by  very  learned  interpreters. 
The  first  is  the  frequent  abruptness  in  St.  Paul's  style, 
frequent  parentheses,  not  so  much  flowing  on  in  a  pre- 
meditated  order,  as  borne  on  by  a  sort  of  divine  impulse. 
Thus  Irenseus  of  old  observed ;  "  that  the  Apostle  introduces  iü.  7. 
many  hyperbata,  on  account  of  the  rapidity  of  bis  style,  and 
the  impetuousness  of  the  spii'it  which  is  in  him,  is  discoverable 
from  many  things,"  The  second  cause  is,  that  opinions  of 
the  Hebre^Y  doctors,  ancient  and  modern,  are  ratlier  referred 
to,  as  being  well  known  among  those  to  whom  he  was 
writing,  than  fully  given  out.  To  which  may  be  added,  that 
lie  does  not  unravel  the  objections  of  Jews,  which  he  was 
answering,  but  strikes  through  them  with  a  blow — as  known 
to  those  to  whom  he  was  writing.  Many  other  causes  of 
obscurity  might  be  added,  had  I  room  for  them.  As  you, 
however,  have  better  eyes  than  all  other  men,  and  think 
you  see  so  clearly  through  St.  Paul's  discourses,  allow  me 
to  address  you  in  the  words  of  Origen  to  Celsus.  "  First  Lib.  iü. 
make  piain  St.  PauFs  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  having  ^^^j  J  " 
carefully  considered  the  meaning  of  each  expression  therein,  Cantab. 
shew  that  you  understand  his  words."  MTien  you  have  done 
this,  all  learned  men,  I  think,  will  willingly  concede  you  the 
palm  among  the  interpreters  of  Holy  Scripture.  And  so 
much  for  our  first  argument,  in  which  it  is  proved  clearly 
that  it  is  more  reasonable  to  interpret  St.  Paul  from  St. 
James,  than  St.  James  from  St.  Paul. 

§  6.  My  next  argument,  by  which  I  aimed  at  establishing 
the  same,  is  drawn  from  tradition  and  the  opinion  of  the 
ancients;  they  thought  that  St.  James's  Epistle  (where  he 
speaks  of  justification)  was  written  expressly  against  men 
who  had  misinterpreted  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and  asserted 
that  faith  alone  without  good  works  was  sufficient  for  a 
raan's  justification  or  salvation.  The  truth  of  this  tradition, 
indeed,  is  sufficiently  attested  and  evidenced  by  the  fact, 
apart  from  the  authority  of  the  ancients.  Otherwise,  I  ask, 
whence  could  that  error  of  justification  by  faith,  as  a  single 
virtue,  without  works,  have  arisen  among  the  Christiaus 
against  whom  St.  James  argues,  exccpt  from  the  misundcr- 


12      Argument  from  tradition.     Trifling  ofthe  Censurer. 

S  T  R I C.  Standing  of  St.  Paul's  arguments  ?  You  conld  not  even 
^-  imagiue  a  more  probable  origin  of  tlie  error.  Notbing  how- 
evei-  can  be  fairer,  nothing  better,  than  to  interpret  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  by  comparison  with  a  discourse  of  St.  James,  wbich 
he  wrote  with  the  design  of  putting  an  end  to  false  interpre- 
tations  of  the  same  Epistles.  Here  you  snrely  have  nothiug 
[II.  Diss.  to  object  to  in  the  argument  itself.  Only  because  I  said, 
rv.  2.  p.  (( ^yiiat  adds  a  farther  degree  of  probability  is,  tliat  St.  James 
uses  the  same  example  of  Abraham  to  prove  Svorks  are  neces- 
ßoni.  4.  saiy  for  justification,'  from  which  St.  Paul  deduces  that  '  man 
is  justified  by  faith  without  works'" — in  reference  to  these 
words,  I  say,  you  address  me  thus ;  "  What  do  you  mean  ? 
do  you  think  that  St.  James  wrote  with  the  Intention  of 
contradicting  St.  Paul  ?  to  what  purpose  do  you  raise  this 
suspicion?"  But,  Sir,  in  return,  let  me  ask  Avhat  do  you 
mean  by  promising  your  reader  censures  on  my  book,  and 
then  setting  before  him  this  trifling,  this  sheer  riff-raff? 
Teil  me,  do  you  really  seriously  think  that  by  those 
words  I  meant  that  St.  James  wrote  with  the  Intention 
of  contradicting  St.  Paul  ?  that  /  meant  this,  I  who  wrote 
the  whole  of  my  second  Dissertation,  not  a  sliort  one,  with 
a  design  of  shewing  that  in  the  controversy  of  justifica- 
tion neither  St.  James  contradicted  St.  Paul  nor  St.  Paul 
St.  James  one  whit  ?  I  who  have  shewn  that  the  example  of 
Abraham  was  rightly  and  appositely  brought  forward  by  both 
ir.  Diss.  the  Apostles?  Consider  again  my  words,  where,  after  much 
ijy'^'^^  Said  in  exposition  of  St.  Paul's  discourse  on  Abraham  in 
Romans,  cliapter  the  fourth,  among  other  things  I  subjoin  the 
foUowing  conclusion  :  "  In  addition  to  this,  the  agreement  of 
St.  Paul  with  St.  James  is  clearly  seen  from  this,  namely,  that 
from  the  same  example  of  Abraham,  the  former  concludes  'a 
man  to  be  justified  without  works,'  the  latter  'by  works:'  for 
St.  Paul  spcaks  of  Abraham  '  according  to  the  flesh,'  such  as 
he  Mas  before  the  call ;  St.  James,  wlien  blessed  by  grace  and 
the  Divine  call.  The  former  denies  justification  to  his  works 
donc  before  faith,  while  the  latter  attributes  it  to  works  pro- 
cecding  from  faith.  Here,  then,  is  no  contradictiou  between 
the  Apostles.'^ 

Thiidv  again  over  these  words,  and  be  ashamed  that  such 
a  remark,  shall  I  call  it  so  futilc  or  so  malicious,  sliould  have 


Tertnllian's  rnle  examined.  13 

fallen  from  your  pen.     I  will  only  aclcl  that  my  Observation  STRIC. 

whicli  you  object  to  is  borrowecl  from  St.  Angustine,  wlio 

tlius  speaks  :  "  Since  the  Apostle  Paul,  saying  that  a  man  is  Lib.  de  83 
iustified  by  faith  without  works,  has  been  misunderstood  by  Q"*^*^''- 

J  J  '  _  »    nil)us,  qu. 

men,  wlio  were  led  to  snppose  that  if  tliey  once  believed  in  76.  [vol. 

Christ,  although  they  still  did  e^dl  and  lived  in  iniqnity  and^'"  ^'      -' 

lewdness,  they  could  be  saved  through  faith  :  this  passage  of 

this  Epistle  (meaning  St.  James  chapter  the  secoud)  explains 

the  meaning  of  St.  Paul  and  shews  how  it  is  to  be  uuderstood, 

and  it  is  on  this  account  that  he  rather  chooses  the  example  of 

Abraham,  saying  that  ^  faith  which  worketh  not  nghteousness 

is  vain,^  as  St.  Paul  liad  used  the  same  example  of  Abraham 

to  prove  that  '  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the  works 

of  the  law.' "     The  rest  that  St.  Augustine  says  is  well  worth 

reading. 

§  7.  And  these  were  the  arguments  by  which  I  thought  it 
snfficiently  proved  that  it  was  more  agreeable  to  reason  to 
Interpret  St.  Paul  from  St.  James,  than  St.  James  from 
St.  Paul.  But  to  all  these  argiiments  you  oppose  the  well 
known  rule  of  Tertullian,  that  thiugs  which  are  rare  ought 
to  be  explained  by  things  of  oftener  occurrence,  and  you  re- 
mind  me  again  of  the  same  rule  in  your  remarks  on  chap.  iv. 
of  second  Dissertation,  p.  57.  Under  this  rule  you  seem  to 
assume  that  there  is  one  passage  only  of  St.  James,  and 
that  confined  within  a  veiy  few  verses ;  whereas  St.  Paul's 
discussions  on  the  same  argument  are  both  many  and 
lengthened,  and  hence  you  would  draw  your  conclusion,  in 
Opposition  to  mine,  that  therefore  it  is  more  reasonable  to 
interpret  St.  James  from  St.  Paul,  than  St.  Paul  from  St. 
James.  But  here  you  impose  a  gross  fallacy  upon  yourself 
and  your  reader,  and  mistake  much  in  your  calculations,  for 
the  passage  of  St.  James,  which  you  call  sin  gl  e,  Stands  sup- 
ported,  so  to  speak,  by  the  whole  army  of  the  Scriptures :  to 
wit,  that  there  is  need  not  of  faith  only,  but  of  repentance 
also,  (which  includes  the  whole  duty,  as  prescribed  in  the 
Gospel,  of  a  sinner  returuing  to  God,)  that  a  sinner  may  be 
accounted  and  dealt  with  as  righteous  through  the  sacrifice 
of  the  Mediator,  with  the  remission  of  all  his  sins,  and  the 
bestowal  of  the  right  to  salvation  and  eternal  life,  (which 
only  is  the  doctrine  of  St.  James,)  the  writings  both  of  the 


14        St.  James  is  supported  by  the  lohole  of  Scripiure. 

s  T  R I  c.  Old  and  New  Testament  openly  and  constautly  declare.  This 

L is  Tvliat  I  remarked  in  tlie  Harmony,  at  tlie  beginning  of  the 

argument,  where  I  endeavoiu'ed  to  establisli  St.  James's  State- 
ment by  other  testimonies  from  Scripture.     My  words  are 
I.  Diss.ii.  as  follows  :  "For  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  tliat  St.  James  liath 
^'  P'  ^^'    advaneed  any  parodox  or  opinion  pecuüar  to  himself.     What 
he  says  are  the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit^  which  are  every 
where  consistent.     The  Prophets,  the  Apostles,  Christ  Him- 
self, all  give  the  same  eWdence.      This  doctrine  oceupies 
almost  every  page  of  Holy  Scripture ;  and  I  will  venture  to 
say  that  scarce  any  other  can  be  produced  out  of  those  holy 
volumes  which  is  so  distinctly  laid  down  or  so  often  tauglit." 
What  if  St.  Paul  himself  constautly  and  clearly  asserts  and 
defends  the  same  doctrine^  and  that  in  the  very  Dissertations 
out  of  which  you  and  many  others  endeavour  to  build  up  the 
Harm.  II.  coutrary^  as  I  have  shewn  largely  and  plainly?     All  your 
5-ül'o!^     boasting  of  the  many  and  long  dissertations  of  St.  Paul  to 
the  contrary  is  just  nothing.     That  the   sober  and  truth- 
loving  reader  may  convince  himself  of  this,  I  ■svish  him  to 
weigh  attentively  these  two  points  :    First,  that  a  man  is 
justified  by  faith  without  works,  is  taught  in  so  many  terms 
by  no  inspired  wi'iter  but  St.  Paul :  to  be  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  this  remark,  the  reader  need  only  consult  a  Concord- 
ance,  when  liis  own  eyes  will  assui'e  him  of  the  fact.  Secondly, 
that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  works  is  no  where 
taught,  even  by  St.  Paul,  except  in  the  Avay  of  controversy 
and  in  the  dispute  in  which  he  was  engaged  against  the 
enemies  of  the  Gospel,  who  contended  that  a  man  was  justi- 
fied otherwise  than  by  the  Gospel  covenant,  or  at  least  not  by 
Acts  13.    that  ahne;  viz.,  in  his  Epistles  to  the  Chm*ches  of  Rome  and 
'  Galatia,  where  he  is  speakiug  too  to  Jews,  and  trying  to 

drive  them  from  their  trust  in  the  Mosaic  covenant.  The 
truth  of  this  remark  also,  may  be  shewn  by  the  means  which 
I  pointed  out  above.  To  tliis  Observation  I  would  add,  as 
consequent  on  it,  that  St.  Paul  does  not  oppose  faith  to  the 
other  virtues  of  the  Gospel,  (nothing  would  be  farther  from 
his  purpose,)  but  by  the  word  faith  he  means  the  whole 
condition  of  the  Gospel  covenant,  opposed  to  those  grounds 
and  conditions  by  which  his  adversaries  taught  that  man  is 
justified  whethcr   without   the   Performance  of  the  Gospel 


Stricture  on  the  expression  " perfeded  faith."  15 

covenant^  or  in  connection  with  it.     But  tliis  is  by  the  way ;  s  T  R I  c. 

we  have  explained  it  fully  in  the  Harmony,  and  we  will  repeat ^' 

it  again  in  this  Examen  in  a  more  convenient  place.  ]Mean- 
while,  from  these  two  obsen  ations  compai'ed  with  those  which 
Ave  mentioned  on  the  constant  tenor  of  Scripture,  it  is  most 
evident  that  Tertullian's  rule,  that  "  the  fewer  passages  of 
Scripture  ought  to  be  explained  by  those  of  more  frequent 
occurrence/^  makes  for  our  side ;  and  hence  it  would  neces- 
sarily  follow^  (if  other  arguments  "^ere  ■«"anting,)  that  it  is 
more  reasonable  to  intei-pret  St.  Paul  from  St.  James^  than 
St.  James  from  St.  Paul :  q.  e.  d. 


STRICTURE  II. 

ON  I.  DISS.  i  4.  p.  7. 

Here  in  the  exposition  of  the  remarkable  passage,  Acts 
xiü.  38,  39,  you  carp  at  my  explaining  '  believers  in  Christ^  by 
'  those  endowed  with  a  perfected  faith.'  Your  "vrords  rwa.  thus  : 
"  I  most  willingly  faU  in  with  this  explanation  of  St.  Paulis 
meaning,  but  do  not  like  the  phrase  '  perfected  faitli.^  After-  fides  for- 
wardsj  speaking  with  the  schoolmen  who  treated  the  work  of  "^^^' 
justification  confusedly,  and  shamefully  corrupted  the  Gospel 
doctrine,  you  assert  that  faith  is  perfected  by  love :  neither 
logicaUy  nor  theologically.  Faith  is,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Apostle,  distinct  from  love.  Love  is  no  more  the  form  of 
faith  than  of  hope,  or  the  fear  of  God,  or  repentance." 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  II. 

You  go  on  as  you  began.  You  here  again  betray  your 
miserable  habit  of  objecting,  even  going  out  of  your  way  to 
pull  to  pieces  a  most  innocent  expression.  The  phrase,  how- 
ever,  '  pei'fected  faith,'  which  suits  not  your  taste,  was  not  dis- 
approved  by  the  worthy  Bucer,  the  chief  divine  among  the 
first  refonners.  He  commended  to  others  the  phrase  'we  are  fide  for- 
justified  by  perfected  faith'  as  at  once  agreeable  to  truth,  and  [^g^''^"^" 
most  fitted  to  preser^e  peace :  and  rebuked  those  Protest- 
ants  who  in  this  question  wcrc  offended  with  the  truth,  as 


16  Love  thefunn  of  justifyiny  faith . 

STRI  c.  we  observed  in  II.  Diss.  ii.  8.  p.  53,  where  also  I  firmly  esta- 
^^-  blished  tliis  phrase  from  the  very  words  of  St.  James.  I 
here  repeat  them,  because  as  usual  you  pass  tliem  over  iu 
silence,  thinking  you  have  done  euough,  if  you  croak  your 
usual  (non  placet)  "  it  does  not  please  me/'  thougli  against 
ever  so  great  autbority  and  plain  reason.  But  listen — ^if  you 
cannot  bear  tbe  plirase  '  perfected  faith/  why  do  you  so  often 
use  in  your  o^vn  remarks  tbe  pbrase  '  ÜAdng  faith/  for  betweeu 
these  phrases  there  is  little  or  no  difference.  It  is  childish 
(to  say  no  worse)  to  object  to  a  phrase  used  by  another, 
wliile  you  are  constantly  yourself  using  a  phrase  very  similar, 
and  which  comes  to  exactly  the  same  thing. 

§  2.  What  most  of  all  seems  to  have  displeased  you,  is 
fidem  that  I  afterwards  assert  that '  faith  is  perfected  by  love.'  Now 
charitate    ^  trucc  to  all  sku'mishings — allow  nie  to  put  this  question 

lormatam  °  ^  '■^ 

esse.  before  you,  to  be  deliberately  and  fi'eely  discussed,  Whether 
love  is  rightly  said  to  be  the  form''  of  justifying  faith?  I  say 
it  is,  you  deny  it.  To  understand,  however,  the  state  of  the 
question,  we  must  first  of  all  observe  that  love  is  not  said  to 
be  the  '  form'  of  '  faith/  as  though  it  had  any  thing  to  do  with 
its  '  essence,'  or  properly  speaking  formed  it,  since  one  habit  of 
the  soul  is  not  the  subject  of  another,  but  because  an  act  of 
faith  is  so  far  perfected  and  formed  through  love,  as  to  be 
accepted  by  God  according  to  the  Gospel  covenant,  and  be 
available  for  man's  justification  and  salvation.  I  had  re- 
marked  this  in  I.  Diss.  iv.  5.  p.  25.  "  I  do  not  at  all  doubt 
but  that  love  may  be  rightly  called  the  form  of  justifying 
faith;  I  say  expressly  of  justifying  faith,  because  it  is  allowed 
that  faith  considered  by  itself  has  its  own  form ;  but  that 
faith  which  and  as  far  as  it  justifies,  must  necessarily  be  ren- 
dered  complete  by  true  love."  It  is  useless  then  to  remind 
US  that  faith  by  the  Apostle's  decision  is  a  virtue  distinct 
from  love,  as  though  any  man  in  bis  senses  had  ever  denied 
that.  But  as  regards  myself  you  know  what  I  think :  viz., 
that  faith  and  love  are  vartues  distinct  even  in  the  subject,  so 
that  you  may  find  faitli,  and  that  perfect  in  its  kind,  in  a 
man  who  has  no  love.  Still,  if  an}^  man  in  the  above  sense 
said  that  '  love  was  the  form  of  faith,'  or  that  '  faith  was  in- 
formed  l)y  love,'  he  would  speak  qiütc  logically,  as  well  as 

''  i.  e.  that  v/liioh  niakes  it  wlmt  it  is.— Ed. 


Meaning  of  the  word  ivepyeta-öat.  17 

theologically — logically,  because  as  the  form  is  the  cause  by  s  t  R  i  c. 
which  a  thing  is  wbat  it  is,  so  justifying  faith  becomes  justi- '- — 


f\äng  tlirough  love,  according  to  the  Gospel  covenant ;  otber- 
wise  according  to  that  coveuant  it  would  justify  no  man,  nor 
would  he  talk  un-theologically  or  inconformably  witli  Scrip- 
ture ;  for  what  eise  does  St.  Paul  say  in  tbe  well  known  pas- 
sage  in  Gal.  v.  6,  "  in  Christ  Jesus,  neither  circumcision  a.x\a 
availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  faith  which  äyc{7,^,,y 
worketh  (or  is  actuated  or  "«Tought)  bv  love."  ifepyov- 

§  3.  I  have  often  quoted  the  passage  in  my  Dissertations, 
but  I  may  perhaps  be  allowed  nevertheless  to  tlirow  some 
fresh  and  fuller  light  upon  it.  The  participle  ivep'yov/jievr}, 
though  it  is  of  the  middle  voice,  I  said  must  be  here  taken  I.  Diss.  iv. 
in  a  passive  sense,  and  consequently  irian'i  hC  dyd7rr}<i  epep-  '  ^' 
'yovfjbivrj  must  be  translated  ''faith  which  is  perfected  or 
brought  to  its  effect  through  love.'  In  fact,  you  scarce  find 
the  word  ivepyeia-ßai  elsewhere  in  an  active  sense,  even  in 
the  classicsj  it  almost  always  means  what  we  should  trans- 
late  in  Latin  by  agi,  agitari,  exercein,  effici,  perfici,  or  some- 
thing  of  the  sort  in  a  passive  sense.  Whence  those  possessed 
by  a  devil,  driven,  harassed,  and  as  it  were  'informed,'  (or 
receiving  a  character,)  are  called  energumeni.  lustauces  of  eVep7ov- 
the  passive  siguification  occur  frequently  in  St.  Paid's  Epis-  '^^*'°'' 
tles.  Rom.  \i\.  5,  "the  motions  of  sins,  which  were  by  the 
law,  did  work  {ivijpyelro,  were  brought  or  perfected)  in  our 
members."  So  Tertullian  renders  the  passage,  and  the  de  Resur- 
meaning  is  piain — "  The  motions  of  sins,  i.  e.  the  motives,  carni"^ 
appetites,  and  desires  to  sin,  which  exist  and  are  roused  by 
the  law,  were  exercised  and  actively  completed  in  our  mem- 
bers."  So  2  Cor.  i.  6,  "  for  your  consolation  and  salvation, 
which  is  effectual  in  the  enduring,"  where  the  sense  does 
not  admit  an  active  siguification;  whence  Chrysostom  re- 
marks  expressly  that  St.  Paul  said  not  ivepyova-Tj'i,  'which 
worketh,'  but  ivepyovfievi]^,  ^  which  is  Avorked,'  (or  wrought). 
So  2  Cor.  iv.  12,  "death  ivepyelraL  in  us,  but  life  in  you," 
where  I  marvel  that  our  Interpreters  have  rendered  'death 
worketh  in  us.'  For  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  here? 
It  is  evident  from  the  context,  that  the  real  meaning  of  the 
Apostle  is  the  following :  By  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel, 
death  is  wrought  in  us,  (i.  e.  we  die  daily  for  the  Gospel,) 

BULL.  (j 


18  The  expression  "faith  perfected  by  love," 

s  T  R I  C.  while  by  the  same  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  in  you,  wlio  have 

^L —  no  troubles  on  its  account,  life  is  wrotiglit,  spiritual  and 

etemal.     In  these  passages  it  is  piain  tliat  tlie  verb  ivepyel- 
aOai,  cannot  be  suitably  taken  in  any  other  than  a  passive 
sense ;  and  moreover  in  all  the  otber  places,  -vrliere  some  bave 
thought  an  active  signification  absolutely  necessary,  a  passive 
signification  suits  best.     In  Eph.  iii.  20,  Kara  rrjv  Bvva/Mcv  rr)v 
ivepyov/xevrjv  ev  tj/mv,  "according  to  tbe  power  tbat  worketh 
in  us/'  or  '  is  wrougbt  or  perfected  in  us  •/  for  he  is  speaking  of 
the  grace  of  God  that  the  faithful  had  already  experienced, 
and  brings   that  fonvard  as    an    ai'gument,   on   which   the 
faithful  might  rely  for  security  as  to  the  grace  of  God  for 
the  futnre.     So  Coloss.  i.  last  verse,  Karä  rrjv  ivepyeiav  avrov 
rrjv  ivepyovfjLevTjv  iv  e'/xol  ev  hwafiei,  "  according  to  His  work- 
ing  which  worketh  in  me  mightily/^  or  'which  is  wrought 
(or  exercised,  or  perfected)  in  me  in  power/     So  1  Thess.  ii. 
13,  Xoyov   0eov,  o?   ivepyeirai   iv   vfuv    rot?   iriaTevoDcn,  the 
"word  of  God  which  effectually  worketh  also  (or  'which  is 
perfected^)  in  you  that  believe."     The  word  of  God  is  then 
Said  ivepyeto-Oai,,  or  to  be  'perfected^  in  a man,  when it  attains 
the  end  (and  eflfect)  appointed  to  it,  \dz.  the  obedience  of 
faith.   Similarly  also  2  Thess.  ii.  7,  "  The  mystery  of  iniquity,'' 
7]Br)  ivepyelrai,  " doth  already  work,^'   or   'is  already  being 
wrought,^  or  'begins  to  be  wrought;'    so  that  there  is  no 
necessity  here   for  the  active  voice.     Lastly,  James  v.  16, 
"The  efFectual  fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous  man  {ivepyov- 
ßxevrj,  or  the  prayer  'actuated  and  impelled  by  a  heavenly 
warmth  and  force')  availeth  much." 

§  4.  And  so  to  return  to  the  passage  before  us,  Trla-rc;  8l' 

dyd7rrj<i  ivepyovp.€vr)  is  'faith  wrought  upon,  moved,  animatcd, 

contra       perfcctcd  by  love,'  and  this  is  no  new  interpretation.     Tcr- 

Marc.  5. 4.  tullian  thus  quotes  the  passage,  "  faith  which  is  perfected  l)y 

lovc."     He  is  supported   by  the   Syriac  Interpreter,  whose 

authority  has  always  been  high  aniong  the  learned.     This 

being  estabhshed,  I  ask  how  St.  PauFs  phrase,  Tr/o-rt?  Si' 

aydirr]^   ivepyovfievq,  differs  from  the  phrase  which  yon  so 

fides         much  objcct  to,  '  faith  perfected  by  love.'     Sm-ely  the  diflfer- 

charitate    ^j^gg  |g  ^q  sHsrht,  that  ouc  might  pass  for  a  very  fair  versiqn 

forinata.  o-»  ox* 

of  the  other.     But  we  do  not  rest  on  the  phrase  alonc;  the 
aim  and  meaning  of  the  passage  prove  what  we  are  maintain- 


supported  from  ancient  testimony.  19 

ing,  tliat  faith  is  perfected  and  formed  (receives  its  character)  s  T  R  i  c. 
through  love  thus  far,  ^iz.  : — that  without  love  it  is  of  no       ^^' 
avail  or  profit  to  a  man^s  justificatiou  aud  salvatiorij  which  is 
all  we  mean  uhen  we  say  that  faith  is  '  perfected  by  love/  chrritate 
as  I  have  before  told  vou.     But  how  piain  is  tbis  from  St.  f°™^tain. 
PauVs  words  !     The  old  interpreters,  Greek  as  -nell  as  Latin, 
reniarked   on   tbis    passage,    (and    tbe    remark   is    ob-^-ious 
enougbj)  tbat  as  St.  Paul  restricts  tbe  faitb  in  Cbrist  Jesus 
tbat  is  of  any  avail,  by  adding,  '-svbicb  is  perfected  by  love/ 
be  plainly  intimates  tbat  tbere  is  no  faitb  wbicb,  witbout  love 
in  Cbrist  Jesus,  tbat  is,  according  to  tbe  Gospel  covenant,  is 
of  any  avail  to  a  man's  justificatiou  and  salvation;  but  tbat 
'faitb  perfected  by  love^  (as  tbe  great  Apostle  speaks)  is  every 
tbing  in   Cbristianity,  or  is  all  tbat  tbe   Gospel  demands. 
Tbe  famous  passage  of  Ignatius,  a  disciple  of  tbe  Apostles,  adEph.i4. 
and  a  partaker  of  tbeir  mysteries,  wbicb  I  bave  prefixed  to  ^'    ^' 
my  Harmony,  wonld  supply  tbe  place  of  a  commentary  (were 
tbere  need  of  one)  on  tbese  words  of  tbe  Apostle.     "  Ye  miss 
of  notbing  if  ye  bave  perfectly  toward  Cbrist  Jesus  faitb  and 
love,  wbicb  are  tbe  beginning  and  end  of  life;    faitb  tbe 
beginning,  love  tbe  end.     But  tbe  two  being  in  union  are 
of  God,  and  every  tbing  eise  toward  good  li^ing  follows  tbem.^^ 
Tbe  meaning  of  tbese  words,  wbicb  briefly  and  clearly  ex- 
press  tbe  wbole  of  tbe  doctrine  wbicb  I  defend,  is  piain  :  Tbe 
beginning  of  Gospel  rigbteousness  is  faitb  :  tbe  completion 
of  it  is  love :  tbese  two  united  render  a  man  in  Clirist  Jesus, 
i.  e.  according  to  tbe  Gospel  covenant,  reXeiov,  '  perfect,^  i.  e. 
accepted  by  God  unto  eternal  salvation.     Every  tbing  eise, 
wbicb  any  way  appertains  to  a  boly  life  and  tbe  practice  of 
good  works,  necessarily  follows  and  depends  upon  aud  flows 
from  tbese.     Tbis  is  taugbt  elsewbere  most  clearly  by  tbe 
same   Apostle.     "  Tbougb   I   bave   all  faitb   and   bave  not  iCor.i3.2. 
cbarity,  I  am  notbing ;"  to  wit,  as  tbe  form  gives  tbe  being 
in  natural  tbings,  so  love  gives  faitb  a  being  in  its  acceptance 
witb  God ;  and  accordingly  a  man,  wbatever  be  bis  faitb,  if  be 
be  witbout  love,  is  as  tbougb  be  existed  not  as  regards  justi- 
ficatiou and  salvation.     We  bave  vindicated  tbe  passage  from 
some  frivolous  objections  at  great  lengtb  II.  Diss.  iv.  6.  p.  59. 
§  5.  Your  last  assertion,  tbat  love  is  no  more  tbe  form  of 
'faitb'  tban  of  'bope,'  or  'tbe  fear  of  God,'  or  ' repentancc,' 

c  2 


20  Love  the  'form'  of  every  virtue, 

s  T  R I  c.  is,  for  oncCj  a  true  one.     Doubtless  love  is  the  form  of  all  the 
other  virtues  in  the  same  wav  as  it  is  of  faith ;  inasmuch  as 


there  is  no  virtue  which  is  not  perfected  and  iuformed  by  love, 

so  far  as  that  thus  it  becomes  accepted  by  God,  and  available 

I.  Diss.  vi.  towards  a  man^s  salvation.     Hence  in  my  Dissertations  I 

■  ^'     ■     Said,  "  If  there  be  any  universal  virtue,  which  fills,  as  it  were, 

all  the  rest  with  goodness,  and  gives  them  their  value  and 

importance,  that  certainly  is  charity,  the  true  love  of  God 

and  our  neighbour,  from  which  whatever  arises,  will  at  last 

il.Diss.ii.be  grateful  and  pleasing  to  God/^     Elsewhere  I  say  "that 

love  is  that  wtue,  which  in  the  matter  of  salvation,  God 

chiefly  regards,  and  which  ouly,  according  to  the  gracious 

covenant  of  God,  attracts  salvation  by  a  necessary  connection." 

At  this  you  raise  a  monstrous  cry,  you  declare  "  your  mind  was 

hon-ified,  as  you  read  this  new  doctrine/^     But  as  I  have 

already  remarked,  any  thing  is  new  to  you  which  you  have 

not  met  with  in  your  systematizers.     The   doctrine  which 

you  call  '  new,'  and  at  which  you  are  so  dreadfully  horrified, 

is  St.  Augustine's  and  Prosper's  opinion.     In  the  book  of 

inter  Op.    Seutences,  extracted  from  the  works  of  St.  Augustine  by 

vol^x!       Prosper,  the  seventh  is  this :    "  The  love  of  God  and  our 

Append.     neighbom'  is  the  peculiar  and  special  virtue  of  pious  and  holy 

meu,  siuce  all  the  other  virtues  may  be  sharcd  by  bad  as 

well  as  good  men,"     If  there  is  no  virtue  but  love,  in  which 

bad  men  have  share  with  holy  men,  it  is  piain  that  love  is 

that  virtue,  which  God  especially  regards  in  the  matter  of 

salvation  &c.     IMoreover,  if  faith  itself  be  imperfect  by  itself, 

and  is  of  no  a\ail  to  man's  salvation  unless  Si'  ayaTr?/?  Ivep- 

yov/jievr]  perfected  by  love,  (which  has  been  already  clearly 

proved,)  it  is  evident  how  much  more  this  may  be  affirmed  of 

all  the  other  virtues;   and  therefore  what  St.  Paul  says  of 

1  Cor.  13. 3.  faith,  that  '  without  love  it  profiteth  nothing,'  he  extends  to 

the  other  virtues  also,  not  only  to  knowledge  and  prophecy, 

but  also   to   alms-giving   and  even   martyrdom.     That  the 

Apostle  had  this  in  view,  when,  after  the  enumeration  of 

(TivStafiov  various  virtuos,  he  bids  the  Colossians  "  above  all  thiugs  to 

Itvtos.  ^'   P^^  0^  love  or  chai'ity  which  is  the  bond  of  perfectness,"  has 

Coi.  ,s.  M.  been  well  observed  by  Isidorus  Clarius,  who  writes  thus  on 

the  passagc:  "  Love,"  says  he,  "is  nothing  eise  tlian  that  which 

collcctcth  all  good  things  into  one  ;  for  it  is  that  mIucIi  makes 


the  form  of  hope,  and  the  fear  of  God.  21 

every  thing  eise  to  be  good."     How  plainly  does  the  Apostle  s  T  R  i  C 
say  tliis  in  Rom.  xiii.  10,  and  Gal.  v.  14,  where  lie  calls  '  love 


— j   — j  j  .1 

the  fulfilling  of  the  law  ! '  Hence  it  is  most  evident  that  love  ^roT^i^i^ov. 
is  (as  we  have  said)  an  universal  wtue  which  answers  to 
every  Divine  commandment,  and  without  which  no  command- 
ment  of  God  can  be  rightly  observed.  The  Apostle  speaks 
indeed  directly  in  those  passages  of  love  to  one^s  neighbour ; 
but  the  love  of  God  is  included  in  the  love  of  one's  neigh- 
bour, as  cause  in  the  effect :  and  as  the  love  of  one's  neigh- 
bour fulfils  all  the  commands  relative  to  our  neighbour;  so 
the  love  of  God  fulfils  all  the  commands  relative  to  God 
Himself.  Lastly,  Christ  Himself  has  most  clearly  determined 
the  point  of  this  controversy,  (and  would  that  poor  miserable 
men  could  give  us  leave  to  hear  His  voice,  and  abide  by  His 
decisiou!)  when  He  said  in  express  words,  that  "on  these 
two  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets," 
viz.  :  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  Mat.  22. 
heart  &c.,"  and,  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself."  f^f^ius^^ 

If,  however,  any  one  after  so  clear  arguments  have  any 
doubt  on  the  subject,  may  I  ask  him  seriously  and  thought- 
fuUy  to  follow  me  through  each  Airtue  mentioned  by  you, 
'hope,  the  fear  of  God,  and  repentance,^  and  he  will  see  that 
there  is  not  one  of  these  which  does  not  stand  in  need  of 
love,  for  its  perfection  and  form,  so  far  as  it  is  to  be  accepted 
with  God.  Let  us  begin  with  'hope.^  This  virtue,  as  dis- 
tinguished  from  faith,  involves  in  its  very  idea  the  notion  of 
love;  its  diflPerence  from  faith  consisting  in  this,  that  the 
form  er  is  carried  on  by  desire  towards  the  object,  which  the 
latter  apprehends  by  a  bare  assent;  and  this  desire  is  charity 
or  love.  This  may  be  more  fuUy  sliewn  thus :  As  we  hope  for 
uothing  which  we  do  not  know  and  believe,  and  knowledge 
therefore  and  faith  (or  belief)  must  precede  hope ;  so  we 
hope  for  nothing  which  we  do  not  love,  as  St.  Augustine  Enchir. 
testifies  and  our  own  reason  confirms.  Whence  it  similarly  ^oj  '^1.  p, 
follows  that  love  precedes  hope,  and  a  love  by  which  God  is  198. 
preferred  before  all  things.  For  as  hope  is  not  Avithout  love, 
so  the  hope  of  the  highest  good,  as  such,  (which  alone  avails 
to  salvation,  and  of  which  alone  we  are  now  speaking,)  cannot 
be  without  love  of  the  highest  good,  as  such,  i.  e.  above  all 
things  ;  and  this  is  Christian  love.     As  regards  '  the  fear  of 


22  Love  the  'form'  of  repentance. 

s  T  11 1  c.  God/  it  is  evident  the  fear  of  God  without  the  love  of  Hirn 

: —  is  the  fear  of  a  '  servant'  not  of  a  '  son  -'  but  fiKal  fear,  which 

alone  is  available  to  salvation,  and  which  is  called  by  the 

aniicalis.  schoolmen  by  other  names,  '  holy,  chaste,  ingenuous,  friend- 
hke,  reverential/  is  that  from  which  a  man  fears  to  olFend 
God,  and  thi'ough  the  offence  to  be  separated  from  God,  as 
his  greatest  Good.  This  fear  makes  a  man  abstain  from  sin, 
not  from  the  fear  of  hell  only,  but  also  from  the  love  of 
vii'tue  and  justice.  This  fear  not  only  keeps  a  restraint  upon 
the  band,  but  is  lord  also  of  the  heart.  On  the  other  hand, 
ser\41e  fear  keeps  the  hand  indeed  from  the  perpetration  of 
the  evil,  but  in  no  way  corrects  the  desire  to  sin.  Lastly, 
of  the  third  virtue  you  mentioned,  '  repentance,'  it  is  equally 
evident.  Repentance  strictly  taken  as  here,  and  distinct 
from  all  other  virtues,  is  grief  for  the  commission  of  sins. 
But  this  grief  without  love  is  only  '  attrition,'  {attritio,  as  the 
schoolmen  say,)  not  ^  contrition,'  (contritio,)  and  so  does  not 
avail  to  salvation.  '  Contrition,'  or  true  sorrow  for  sins,  is 
that  from  which  a  man  grieves  for  his  sin,  not  only  because 
of  the  punishment  due  to  him  on  account  thereof,  but  also 
because  it  is  an  offence  against  God,  (God,  I  say,  the 
highest  Good.)  And  therefore  a  sincere  hatred  of  sin  accom- 
panies  this  grief,  as  also  a  true  love  of  God  and  righteous- 

Serm.  7.  ucss  :  wheucc  St.  Angustine  saith  "nothing  but  the  hatred  of 
sin  and  the  love  of  God  makes  a  sure  repentance." 

§  7.  From  all  these  tliings,  you  will  at  length,  I  hope, 
understand,  that  I  have  not  used  the  phrase  fides  formata, 
*  perfected  faith,'  or  said  that  '  faith  was  perfected  by  love,' 
without  good  reason.  If,  however,  you  still  object  to  these 
phrases,  we  will  for  the  future,  in  argument  with  you,  use  only 
St.  Paul's  phrase,  iriari';  hC  dyaTrrji;  ivepjovfievrj,  or  St.  James's 
iriari'i  e|  ep'yav  re\ei(odetaa,  for  I  take  no  delight  in  empty 
disputes  about  Avords. 


STRICTURE  III. 

ON  I.  DISS.  i.  5.  p.  8. 

I  here  contend,  in  Opposition  to  Grotius'  opinion,  for  the 
true  meaning  of  the  word  SiKatovv  as  it  is  used  in  the  Scrip- 
turcs  in  this   question,  using  this  argument :    "  The  word 


de  Tem- 
pore. 


Force  qf  the  word  ' justification.'  23 

'justify/  both  in  St.  Paul  and  St.  James^  lias  exactly  theSTRiC. 

same  force  as,  '  to  reckon  a  reward/  '  to  impnte  rigliteons- J 

ness/  and  '  to  impute  for  righteousness.'      Now  it  is  well   ^^^^^  '  _ 
nnderstood   tliat   Imputation    denotes    tlie    act    of   God   re-  ylC^crdai, 
garding    a  man  as   just,   not  making   bim  just ;    and  tbis  J^^^^^yl 
Grotius  neitber  can  nor  wül  deny."     Your  remarks  upon  Ceo^e^i,  ds 
tbese  words  are  as  foUows.      "  Tbe  learned  man  bas  well ;,,,;,  ^07^- 
laid  down,  and  proved  satisfaetorily,  tbat  justification  is  tbe  ^«°'öat. 
accounting  of  a  man  rigbteous  wbo  is  rigbteous  otberwise 
tban  hy  tbe  mere  decision  of  tbe  judge ;  God  justifies  bim  rhv  aaeßrj. 
wbo  is  unrigbteous,   but    yet  wbo    is   partaker  of  Cbrist^s 
rigbteousness  tbrougb  faitb.     He  makes,  however,  a  stränge  Rom.  4. 5. 
mistake  in  confoundiug  justification  witb  reward ;    neitber 
does  be  weigb  St.  Paul's  words  very  accurately  wben  be  says 
tbat  jjbLcrOov  Xoyi^eadat  and  BtKatoavvqv  Xoyi^eadat  bave  tbe 
same  force  in  bis  Epistles.     St.  Paul  says  tbat  'to  bim  tbat 
worketb,  tbe  reward  is  not  reckoned  of  grace  but  of  debt : 
but  to  bim  tbat  worketb  not,  but   believetb,  bis  faitb  is  Rom.  4. 
counted  for  rigbteousness.^    Examine  well  and  see  if  St.  Paul   ' 
any  wbere  says  tbat  reward  is  reckoned  to  bim  tbat  believetb, 
and  Avbetber  tbe  passage  of  David  can  allow  tbat  reward  is 
reckoned  to  bim  wbose  faitb  is  counted  for  rigbteousness  ver.  6. 
witbout  works." 


ANS  WER  TO  STRICTURE  III. 

Wbat  you  mean  in  tbe  first  part  of  your  remark,  I  do  not 
exactly  understand,  nor  does  it  mucb  matter  wbetber  I 
understand  it  or  not ;  for  wbatever  it  is  tbat  you  tbere  say, 
you  express  your  agreement  witb  and  approval  of  wbat  I 
bave  asserted,  and  tberefore  the  only  tbing  tbat  I  tbouglit 
required  consideration  was  your  remark  tbat  follows,  "tbat 
I  bave  made  a  stränge  mistake  in  confounding  justification 
witb  reward.  ^'  Surely  you  are  bere  yourself  making  a 
mistake.  I  am  not  confounding  justification  witb  'reward,^ 
but  witb  '  tbe  Imputation  or  adjudgment  of  reward,'  on  the 
piain  authority  of  St.  Paul.  But  neitber  do  you  agree  to 
this ;  more  tban  tcn  timcs  in  othcr  parts  of  your  animadver- 
sions  you  complaiu  of  my  not  liaving  sufiicicntly  distinguishcd 


24  Statement  of  the  question. 

s  T  R I  c.  tlie  reckoninff  of  tlie  reward,  or  tlie  admission  of  a  man  to 

in  .  .  . 
'- —  salvation  and  eternal  life  from  justification.     For,  in  page  10 

of  my  first  Dissertation,  i.  6,  where  with  almost  all  tlie  re- 
fonned  Divines  I  thus  describe  the  justification  of  a  sinner 
according  to  the  Gospel  covenant,  "  It  is  the  act  of  God  as  a 
judge,  according  to  the  merciful  law  of  Christ,  acquitting  the 
accused,  pronouncing  him  righteous,  and  admitting  him  to 
the  reward  of  righteousness,  that  is_,  eternal  Wie,"  you  remark 
thus :  "  This  is  an  uncalled  for  Interpolation  about  reward, 
and  an  explanation  of  justification  founded  on  no  passage  of 
Scripture.  Eternal  life  follows  upon  righteousness,  but  in  an 
acquittal  from  all  the  guilt  of  sin  and  the  deserved  punish- 
ment  of  death  there  is  no  place  for  reward,"  &c.  In  another 
place,  page  8,  because  I  affirm  that  '  to  be  justified,'  and  '  to 
be  accepted  with  God  into  salvation'  have  the  sanie  force, 
you  say  that  it  is  my  leading  error,  "  which  I  take  for 
granted,  without  proving,  and  that  the  whole  mass  of  my 
building  supported  by  this  weak  pillar  is  tottering  and  ready 
to  fall."  In  another  place  you  say,  "  that  I  am  often  strik- 
iug  my  foot  against  this  stoue;"  and  therefore  it  concerns 
me  much  to  establish  this  doctrine  on  firm  grounds,  and 
to  vindicate  it  once  for  all  from  your  charges,  which  are 
scattered  all  over  your  animadversions.  To  do  this  more 
conveniently,  I  put  the  question  to  be  dehberately  discussed 
as  follows,  "  Whether  the  notion  of  Gospel  justification  ne- 
cessarily  includes  the  reckoning  of  a  reward,  or  the  admis- 
sion of  a  man  to  life  and  eternal  salvation,"  or  "whether 
conferring  a  right  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  properly  the 
act  of  Gospel  justification."  I  affirm  that  it  is;  you  deny 
it,  and  you  declare  the  line  between  justification  and  the 
reckoning  of  a  reward  to  be  so  broad  that  "  in  the  acquittal 
from  all  guilt  of  sin  (which  alone,  according  to  j'ou,  is  justi- 
fication) there  is  no  place  for  reward ;"  and  you  confidently 
State  at  page  30,  that  "the  adjudgment  of  reward  is  quite 
a  difi'crent  thing  from  justification,"  and  so  in  j^our  remarks 
on  page  12,  you  call  it  an  act  "extraneous  to  justification." 

§  2.  To  have  a  right  understanding  of  the  state  of  the 
question,  we  must  first  remark  that  we  do  not  assert  that  the 
Word  justification  implies  of  itself  the  reckoning  of  a  reward. 
^Vc  arc  not  such  loggerheads  or  so  stupid,  as  not  to  be  well 


The  '  extenV  of  jnstification  varies.  25 

aware  that  there  may  be  jiistification  wliere  reward  does  not  s  T  R I C. 
come  in.     In  a  liuman  court,  if  a  man  is  accused  of  theft, 
murder,  or  any   other   crime,  and   he  be   innocent,  he   is 
acquitted  by  the  judge's  sentence,  i.  e.  he  is  justified;  yet  he 
has  no  reward  for  not  being  a  thief  or  murderer.     It  is 
folly  then  that  you  ask  me  at  page  25  of  my  book,  "  whether 
it  is  one  and  the  same  aet  of  a  judge,  to  acquit  a  man 
of  a  Charge,  and  to  be   pleased  with    him,  and  count  him 
worthy  of  reward."     Who  in  his  senses  ever  affirmed  this  ? 
In  this  question,  however,  we  are  speaking  (as  you  are  aware) 
of  justification  as  a  term  applied  to  the  '  Divine  court/  and 
the  law  or  covenant  of  the  Gospel.     And  that  justification 
before  God,  which  is  required  according  to  the  law  of  the 
Gospel  covenant,  involves  not  only  acquittal  fi'om  sin,  but 
also  a   reckoning  of  reward,  there  can  be  no  doubt.     'To 
justify^  means  of  itself  '  to  declare  a  man  to  be  just^  and  '  to 
treat  liim  as  such.^     Now  whomsoever  God  pronounces  just, 
and  treats  as  such,  to  him  God  not  only  remits  the  debt  of 
sin,  but  He  also  praises,  loves  him,  and  counts  him  worthy  of 
reward,  as  Grotius  has  here  rightly  laid  down.     To  sum  up  Discuss. 
the  whole  in  few  words  :  The  '  extent'  (so  to  speak)  of  justi-  P'     ' 
fication  must  be  calculated  by  the  law,  according  to  the  rule 
of  which  it  is  imparted.     Hence,  in  a  human  court,  a  man  is 
acquitted  by  the  judge  of  a  charge,  in    other  Avords  he  is 
justified,  but  no  reward  is  adjudged  to  him ;  because  the 
law  adjudges  no  such  reward  to  innocence.     But  in  God's 
court,  when  a  man,  guilty  indeed  of  sin,  yet  possessed  of 
faith  perfected  by  love,  is  justified  according  to  the  Gospel  Si'  ayä-Kr)s 
covenant,   not   only   are   his   sins    remitted,   but   a  right  to  ^"fP^"^' 
a  heavenly  reward  is  adjudged  him.     Why?   Because  the 
law  of  the  Gospel  appoints  such  reward  to  the  believer,  and 
therefore,  in  this  court,  though  it  is  not  the  same  thing  to 
acquit  the  prisoner  of  a  charge,  and  to  hold  him  worthy  of 
reward,  yet  most  certain  it  is  that  both  acts  come  under  one 
and  the  same  benefit  of  Gospel  justification,  which  is  all  we 
have  asserted.     After  this   statemcnt  of  the   question,   the 
truth  of  my  opinion  is  sufficiently  evident,  so  that  I  scarcely 
need  dwell  on  the  discussion  any  longer.     But,  as  this  objec- 
tion  is  nearly  the  stcm  and  stern  of  your  censure  on  my  book, 
as  you  repcat  it  tili  ono  is  almost  sick,  as  you  bring  it  forward 


26  Prooff rom  Sa'ipture  that  justification 

s  T  R I  c.  as  an  engine,  by  tlie  force  of  wliicli  you  boast  that  the 
— ^— —  -n-hole  of  my  building  is  falling  to  the  ground ;  on  these 
accounts  I  have  determined  to  prove  the  point  at  greater 
length,  both  by  testimonies  of  Scriptiu-e^  aud  arguments  and 
deductions  drawn  from  Scnpture;  at  the  same  time  answering 
yonr  objections,  as  they  occur  from  time  to  time,  in  their 
several  places. 

§  3.  I  will  first  bring  forward  the  testimonies  of  Scripture 
I.  Diss.  V.  whieh  establish  my  doctrine.  I  will  begin  from  the  passage 
3«  p-  30.  yf\^\Q\^  I  }iave  already  adduced  in  my  Dissertations,  "viz. 
Rom.  iv.  3,  compared  with  verse  4,  where  I  remarked  that 
the  Apostle,  talking  of  justification,  expresses  iXoy[a6i]  ek 
hiKaLoavvrjv,  of  the  former  verse,  immediately  after  by  the 
phrase,  fxia-66<i  Xoyi^eTai.  Hence  I  infer,  that  'to  impute 
something  to  any  one  for  righteousness,'  and  'to  impiite  a 
reward  to  any  one  for  something,'  are  equivalent.  To  this 
yon  say,  "  that  I  err  in  my  exposition  of  the  Apostle,  since 
he  denies  the  impntation  of  reward,  whilst  he  asserts 
the  impntation  of  faith,  verse  5/'  Also  in  the  Stricture 
which  we  have  before  us,  you  say  that  St.  Paul  declares 
that  "to  him  that  worketh  the  reward  is  not  reckoned 
of  errace  but  of  debt,  but  to  him  that  believeth  and 
worketh  not,  his  faith  is  counted  for  righteousness."  But 
you  are  making  an  egregious  mistake.  St.  Paul  does  not 
absolutely  deny,  that  reward  is  reckoned  to  the  believer,  but 
he  says  it  is  not  reckoned  to  him  of  debt.  To  each  of  them, 
both  to  him  that  believeth  and  to  him  that  worketh,  he 
acknowledges  that  a  reward  is  reckoned,  but  on  different 
grounds  :  to  the  one  of  debt,  to  the  other  of  grace.  This  is 
the  piain  meaning  of  St.  Paul ;  he  is  plainly  making  a  dis- 
tinction  between  the  reward  of  grace  and  the  reward  of  debt. 
Now  to  what  purpose  would  he  make  the  distinction,  if  he 
meant,  as  you  suppose,  that  there  was  no  reckoning  of  rewai'd 
but  to  him  that  worketh,  i.  e.  of  debt  ?  Why  then,  you  will 
say,  does  not  the  Apostle  repeat  in  the  antithesis  that  foUows, 
what  he  denied,  verse  4,  concerning  him  that  worketh,  viz. 
that  to  him  (i.  e.  that  worketh),  reward  is  reckoned  of  grace, 
and  affirm  expressly  of  him  that  believeth,  "  but  to  him  that 
believeth  a  reward  is  reckoned  of  grace;"  whcreas  he  nscs 
cvidcntly  anothcr  cxpression,  "to  him  that  believeth  his  faith 


includes  the  imputation  ofreioard.  27 

is  counted  for  righteousness."     I  answer,  tliat  by  the  very  s  T  R  i  c. 

fact  that  the  faith  of  the  believer  is  reekoned  to  him  for '. — . 

righteousness,  it  is  quite  CAddent  that  reward  is  reekoned  to 
him  not  of  debt  but  of  grace^  and  consequently  that  his 
justification  is  merely  one  of  grace,  since  '  faith ^  in  its  very 
term  expresses  grace,  and  entirely  excludes  all  debt  and 
desert.  See  the  copions  remarks  \ve  have  made  on  this  point 
II.  Diss.  xii.  22,  23,  &c.  p.  155,  wliere,  although  the  passage 
almost  compels  you,  you  do  not  utter  one  syllable  to  the  point. 
But  when  the  Apostle  says  that  "to  him  that  believeth  his 
faith  is  counted  for  righteousness"  he  implies  that  'a  re'^rard 
is  reekoned  to  him  that  believeth/  For  wherever  in  the 
Scriptures  any  thing  or  deed  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  any  one 
for  righteousness,  it  is  certain  that  by  that  phrase  is  signified 
God's  approbation,  or  that  He  holds  that  deed  to  be  praise- 
worthy,  or  such  that  He  determines  of  His  infinite  goodness 
that  it  shall  be  recompensed.  Thvis,  the  vengeance  which 
Phineas  took  on  the  idolaters  in  the  ardour  of  his  zeal  for 
God  is  said  'to  be  counted  (or  imputed)  to  him  for  righteous-  Ps.i06.3i. 
ness,^  i.  e.  was  esteemed  by  God  praiseworthy,  and  worthy  of 
recompense.  This  is  clear  from  history,  Num.  xxv.  12,  wliere 
we  read  in  piain  terms,  that  God  on  account  of  Phineas' 
zeal  adjudged  him  and  his  posterity  great  revrard,  See  the 
learned  Hammond  on  the  passage  in  the  Psalms.  Hence 
however,  by  the  way,  we  gather  a  new  and  very  streng  argu- 
ment  for  the  support  of  our  opinion.  It  is  certain  that  when 
it  is  said  that  '  a  man  is  justified  by  faith,'  or  that  '  faith  is 
counted  to  a  man  for  righteousness,'  the  two  expressions  are 
equivalent  in  Scripture.  This  I  have  proved  by  comparing 
many  passages  of  Scripture  together  in  Opposition  to 
Grotius.  Yet  here  you  would  rather  join  with  Grotius,  i.  Diss.  i. 
whom  eise  you  hate  worse  than  a  dog  or  a  viper,  (and  ^'  !'•  ^" 
that  against  almost  all  the  reformed  divines,)  than  yield  to 
the  most  evident  truth,  and  therefore  you  say  (and  only  say) 
that  the  two  things  differ  really  in  meaning.  Shew,  then, 
their  discrepancy  fi'om  Scripture,  and  answer,  if  you  can,  all 
the  passages  I  have  pointed  out  and  compared  together. 
Meantime  I  pass  on.  It  is  equally  certain  that  in  the 
phrase  by  which  any  tliing  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  a  man 
for  righteousness,  the  adjudgment  of  a  reward  is  the  chief 


28  Just'ificatlon  is  unto  life  and  salvation ; 

STRIC.  thing  implied.     What  follows  froiu  this,  but  that  the  justi- 

'- —  fication,  Avliich  is  spoken  of  in  tlie  New  Testament^  comprises 

the  reckoniug  of  a  reward  or  the  admission  of  a  man  to 
salvation  and  life  eternal;  q.  e.  d.  I  now  pass  on  to  other 
passages. 

§  4.  A  most  remarkable  passage — one  which  you  will  not 

be  able  to  evade  by  any  artifice — occurs  Rom.  v.  18.    "There- 

fore  as  by  tbe  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to 

condemnatiou ;  even  so  by  the  rigliteousuess  of  one  the  free 

eij  hiKai-    gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life."     Here 

w(7iv  ^cvris.  j^jg^ißgf^tion,  which  is  imparted  to  the  faithful  through  Chi'ist, 

SiKaiü!(Tis.  is  not  simply  calied  ^justification/  or  ^justification  from  death/ 

SiKalua-tj    or  the  punishment  of  sin ;  but  ^justification  of  life/  i.  e.  living 

rov.  or  life-giving  justification^   as  that  wliich  woiild    not    only 

deHver  a  man  from  death,  but  also  bestow  upon  him  heavenly 

life  and  eternal  happiness.     We  must  not  forget  especially 

that  the  Apostle^  in  the  preceding  verse,  meant  expressly  to 

tV  Trepiff-  shew  forth  'the  abundance  of  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  righteous- 

vaTiToT'*   ness/  or  of  the  justification  by  Christ;  to  shew  forsooth,  that 

Koi  TTJs      tiie  gift  of  justification  does  not  consist  or  subsist  in  the  mere 

TTjs  SiKat-  deliverance  from  death^  which  we  have  deserved  by  sin,  but 

o(TvyT]s.      gQgg  further  and  gives  us  ut  in  vitd  regnemus,  'to  reign  in 

life'  by  Christ  Jesus.     What  can  be  spoken  more  clearly? 

§  5.  A  streng  argument  also  for  om'  doctrine  may  be 
drawu  from  those  passages  of  Scriptui'e  where  'to  be  made 
heir/  viz.  of  a  heavenly  kingdom,  and  'to  be  justified'  are 
used  as  equivalent  expressions,  as  in  Rom.  iv.  13, 14;  Gal.  iii. 
verse  18,  comparcd  with  verse  21 ;  Col.  iii.  24.  To  these  may 
be  added  all  the  texts  in  which  'justification/  'life/  and 
Viel.  Rom.  '  salvation/  are  used  promiscuously.  What  other  reason  can 
3  8  9  2V  ^^  assigned  for  this  promiscuous  usage,  but  that  in  justifica- 
tion a  right  to  salvation  and  eternal  life  is  given  us  ?  One 
Gal.  3. 11.  passage  I  must  add,  "  But  that  no  mau  is  justified  by  the  law 
in  the  sight  of  God,  it  is  evident :  for,  the  just  shall  live  by 
faith."  Where  the  Apostle  proves  that  a  man  is  justified  not 
by  the  law,  but  by  faith,  ou  this  testimony,  that  a  man  '  lives 
by  faith.^  The  argument  of  the  Apostle  would  entii'ely  lose 
its  connexion,  were  not  our  supposition  true,  that  'to  be 
justified/  and  'to  have  a  right  to  life,'  viz.  eternal,  were 
equivalent  terms.    So  much  from  the  testimony  of  Scripture. 


which  is  supported  by  two  arguments.  29 

§  6.  To  tliese  express  testimonies  from  Scripture  I  ayü!  s  t  r  l  C 
subjoin  two  arguments,  wliich  also  have  their  grounds  in '— 


Scripture,  and  are  deducible  from  tlience  by  manifest  in- 
ference. 

Ist.  He  who  is  justified  by  tbe  Gospel  Covenant,  by  that 
A^ery  fact  has  a  right  to  all  tbe  benefits  contained  in  that 
Covenant.  Now  among  the  benefits  contained  in  tbe  Gospel 
Covenant  the  cliief  and  cousummation  of  all  the  rest  is  sal- 
vation  and  eternal  life ;  therefore  he  who  is  justified  by  the 
Gospel  Covenant,  by  that  very  fact  has  a  right  to  salvation 
and  eternal  life.  Here  the  minor  proposition  is  beyond  ques- 
tion,  the  major  is  supported  by  these  arguments.  1.  If  in  the 
Gospel  justification  we  have  not  a  right  to  all  the  benefits  con- 
tained in  the  Gospel  covenant,  then  the  Gospel  justification  is 
something  imperfect,  which  Christians  Avill  at  once  shrink  from 
admitting.  2ndly.  Whoever  is  justified  by  the  Gospel  covenant, 
must,  according  to  the  position  in  which  he  has  been  placed, 
have  performed  all  the  conditions  of  the  Gospel  covenant.  But 
he  who  has  performed  all  the  conditions  of  the  Gospel  cove- 
nant, must  of  necessity  have  a  right  to  all  the  benefits  con- 
tained in  that  covenant ;  since  they  depend  on  that  condition. 
I  say  here,  (which  must  be  observed,)  that  every  justified 
person  has  performed  all  the  conditions  of  the  Gospel  cove- 
nant, according  to  'the  position  in  which  he  has  been  placed.* 
By  which  words  I  mean,  whoever  is  endued  with  faith  in 
Christ  perfected  by  love,  has  at  once  performed  all  the  con- 
ditions of  the  Gospel  covenant  which,  in  the  position  in  wliich 
he  has  been  placed,  are  required  from  him,  although  he  yet 
may  not  have  gone  on  in  continued  pious  w^orkiug ;  conse- 
quently  he  is  justified  by  that  covenant,  and  has  a  right  to 
all  the  benefits  of  that  covenant.  But  from  that  man,  if  time 
be  granted  him,  there  is  demanded  a  continued  pious  work- 
ing  or  a  series  of  visible  deeds,  (which  the  Greek  Fathers 
called  TToXtre/a,)  as  T  have  remarked  elsewhere  in  my  Dis- 
sertations,  and  therefore  this  condition  of  continued  working 
is  not  absolutely  demanded  in  the  Gospel  covenant,  but  on 
supposition,  \\z.  of  continued  life.  Lastly,  St.  Paul  himself  Rom.  4. 
declares  from  David  the  blessedness,  the  perfect  '  blessedness  ^'  ^* 
of  the  man  to  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness,'  i.  e.  whom  ti.6v. 
God  justifies.     Of  course  a  man,  justified  by  God,  would  not 


30  Conclusion  of  the  argument. — The  novelty 

s  T  R I  c.  be  perfectly  blessed  if  he  were  deprived  of  any  benefit  of  tlie 

EL Gospel  covenaut,  much  less  if  be  bad  no  rigbt  to  tbe  cbief 

blessing  of  tbe  Gospel,  ^-iz.  eternal  bfe,  iu  ^bicb  tbe  wbole 
blessedness  of  mau  cousists. 

§  7.  Tbe  second  argument,  wbicb  coufinus  tbe  first,  is  tbis ; 
All  meu  allowtbat  if  a  justified  personwere  to  die  iu  tbevery 
momeut  in  wbicb  be  was  justified,  be  "would  be  beyond  all 
doubt  saved,  i.  e.  be  wonld  gain  eternal  life.  Now  it  is  plaiu  to 
every  one  tbat  tbis  position  Avould  not  bold  good  unless  our  own 
supposition  be  allowed  also,  viz.  tbat  in  justification  a  man 
bas  tbe  rigbt  conferred  on  bim  to  salvation  and  eternal  life. 

§  8.  By  all  tbis  I  bave  sbewn,  I  tbink  clearly,  tbat  tbe 
justification  of  a  sinner,  wbicb  is  promised  in  tbe  Gospel, 
comprebends  not  only  bis  deliveranee  fi'om  sins,  but  also  tbe 
reckoniug  of  a  reward,  or  bis  being  accepted  to  salvation  and 
life  eternal.  I  will  add  tbe  following  by  way  of  make- 
weigbt : — If  it  were  true  according  to  your  opinion,  (as  it  is 
most  utterly  false,)  tbat  justification  in  tbe  Kew  Testament  is 
distinct  from  acceptauce  to  salvation,  tbe  cause  I  am  plead- 
ing  in  my  book  would  receive  no  injury,  provided  only  tbat 
it  be  granted,  wbicb  you  willingly  allow,  tbat  tbe  two  tbings 
are  so  mutually  and  inseparably  connected  tbat  be  wbo  is 
justified  always  bas  a  rigbt  also  to  salvation.  Tbis  being 
granted,  all  tbe  arguments  by  wbicb  I  prove  tbat  faitb,  as  a 
Single  virtue,  is  not  sufficient  for  justification,  stand  good, 
on  tbe  ground  tbat  faitb  is  not  sufficient  to  make  a  man 
accepted  witb  God  unto  salvation.  To  fix  diöferent  conditions 
of  tbings  so  intimately  connected  would  be  very  absiu'd,  and 
tbus  all  tbis  discussion  of  yours  must  fall  uecessaiily  into  a 
useless  dispute  about  words. 


STRICTURE  lY. 

ON  I.  ÜISS.  i.  8.  p.   10. 

il  «070)1/  I  say,  wben  St.  James  declares  tbat  a  man  'is  justified  by 
SifcaioC-  works,^  tbat  tbe  particle  'by'  expresses  only  "'the  preccding 
causa  sine  condition,'  which  is  generally  callcd'the  indispensable  cause,' 
quanoii.    yg^  -^  scarcely  deserves  tlic  name  of  a  cause."     I  then  add. 


of  the  Censurer's  notion  offaith.  31 

"Wlien  a  man  is  said  'to  be  justified  by  faith/  tbe  particle  STRTC. 

'  by'  is  used  in  tbe  sarae  sense,  since  no  one  can  be  said  to  - -^ 

, be  justified  by  faith  itself  as  a  principal  cause^  nor  even  as  ^^Ja^ol-"^ 
a  cause  at  all,  unless  inaccurately  speaking."     Your  remark  <^^"'- 
upon  this  is,  "  Wlien  we  are  said  to  be  justified  '  by  faith'  e«  TriVre- 


s.  5ii 

cause  of  the  righteousness,  which  we  obtain  through  Christ."  eVf'pveia;'. 


we  clearly  mean  to  say  that  the  '  Operation'  of  faith  is  the  Xlareas. 


AXSWER  TO  STRICTüRE  lY. 

Had  I  written  as  much  of  any  other  of  our  virtues,  how 
quickly  would  you  have  exclaimed,  as  is  your  wont,  "  My  mind 
is  horrified  as  I  read  this  new  doctrine."  Here  you  attribute 
to  faith,  an  Operation  which  is  the  cause  of  righteousness,  ivepyua. 
distinct  from  that  which  belongs  to  it  as  a  condition  of  the 
Gospel  covenant,  for  this  latter  I  acknowledge ;  but,  as  I  said, 
the  condition  is  only 'the  indispensable  cause,' which  scarcely 
deserves  the  name  of  a  cause.  You,  however,  take  a  higher  tone, 
and  ascribe  to  faith  another  Operation  beyond  this,  as  really 
causing  righteousness.  Surely  this  doctrine  of  yours  is  new 
indeed !  For  what  confession  of  the  reformed  Churches 
attributes  to  faith  an  Operation  which  is  the  cause  (in  your 
sense)  of  righteousness  ?  at  least  our  Chnrch  is  very  far  from 
agreeing  with  this  doctrine,  as  I  shewed  clearly  II.  Diss.  last 
chapter.  Even  those  systematizers  of  yours,  who  have  attri- 
buted  some  sort  of  instrumentality  to  faith  in  the  work  of 
justification,  disagree  with  you  here.  They,  indeed,  teach  that 
faith  is  the  instrument  of  justification,  but  'passively'  only  or  passivum. 
'  receptively,'  as  they  love  to  speak;  yet  they  have  not  dared  recepti- 
with  you  to  ascribe  to  faith  an  Operation  {ivepyetav)  whicli  is  ^^"^' 
the  cause  of  righteousness,  and  have  even  shewn  a  dislike  to 
the  expression.  How  consistently  they  have  written  on  the 
subject,  I  am  at  no  pains  to  say ;  I  neither  sow  nor  reap  in 
such  fields.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  not  even  they  approve  of 
this  your  way  of  speaking.  Of  the  '  instnimentahty'  of  faitli, 
which  you  assert,  we  will  speak  more  at  length  in  its  proper 
place ;  meanwhile  bear  in  mind,  that  you  have  attributed 
more  to  human  agency  in  the  work  of  justification,  than  I 
dare  ascribe  to  it. 


STRIC. 
V. 


32  Righteousness  the  condition  ofjustification. 

STRICTURE  V. 

ON  I.  DISS.  ii.  5.  p.  14.  (p.  19.) 

Among  otlier  testimonies  from  Scripture,  to  prove  St. 
James's  hypothesis,  I  bring  forward  the  words  of  St.  Peter, 
Acts  10.  the  chief  of  the  Apostles,  "  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons, 
'  ■  but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  Hirn,  and  worketh 
righteousness,  is  accepted  with  Hirn :"  which  words  I  para- 
phrase  thus ;  *  God  respects  the  persou  of  none ;  every  one, 
and  such  only,  are  accepted  by  Hirn  to  salvation,  who  works 
righteousness.'  I  subjoin,  "Can  any  thing  be  more  e\ddent?" 
Youi'  remai'k  upon  these  words  is  couched  in  these  terms : 
"In  truth,  what  St.  Peter,  to  whom  St.  Paul  is  equal,  has 
Said,  is  quite  clear,  but  nothing  to  the  purpose.  He  who 
worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  with  God.  You  add  of 
your  own,  'to  salvation,^  which  St.  Peter  said  not.  Surely 
CorneHus,  who  was  accepted  with  God  on  account  of  his 
righteousness,  was  not  fully  instructed  unto  salvation,  until 
he  believed  in  Christ.  Neither  the  pious  centurion,  nor  any 
other  worker  of  righteousness,  is  in  that  sense  righteous  before 
God,  and  free  from  all  blame  on  account  of  his  inherent 
righteousness.  Take  heed  you  prate  not  against  the  Holy 
Spirit." 

ANSWER  TO  STEICTURE  V. 

§  1.  You  scem  to  object  to  my  calliug  St.  Peter,  by  the 
way,  the  chief  of  the  Apostles;  although  I  said  it  on  the 
authority  of  the  most  ancient  and  approved  doctors  in  tlie 
Church.  They  however,  as  do  I  also,  most  fully  allow,  in 
Opposition  to  the  Roman  Catholics,  that  St.  Paul,  or  any 
other  of  the  Apostles,  as  regards  the  office  of  an  Apostle,  or 
the  government  of  the  Church,  was  equal  with  St.  Peter. 
Let  it  suffice,  however,  to  have  thus  briefiy  touched  upon  this 
point.  You  say,  that  what  St.  Peter  says  is  clear  enougl», 
but  nothing  to  the  purpose.  I  say,  however,  tliat  it  is  very 
much  to  my  purpose.  For  if  no  one  is  accepted  with  God 
unto  salvation,  except  he  who  fears  Hirn  and  works  righteous- 
ness, it  follows  that  no  one,  who  is  not  such,  is  justified;  sincc 


Case  of  Cornelius  considered.  33 

'  being  accepted  with  God  unto  salvation'  and  '  being  justified  s  T  R  l  c. 

by  God'  are  equivalent  terms,  which  I  liave  just  sliewn  clearly '. 

and  fully.  But  you  say  I  liave  added  'to  salvation'  of  my 
own;  I  confess  it,  but  it  is  an  addition  recommended  both 
by  tlie  text  and  the  nature  of  tlie  tliing.  Has  any  one  any 
doubt,  that  the  man  who  fears  God  and  works  righteousness, 
is  also  accepted  hy  Hirn  unto  salvation  ? 

§  2.  Next  you  say  tliat  Cornelius  (on  occasion  of  whom 
St.  Peter  uttered  those  words)  was  not  fuUy  instructed  unto 
salvation  until  he  believed  in  Christ.  This  requires  consider- 
ation.  That  this  ceuturion  was  a  proselyte  of  the  Jewish 
religion,  of  that  class  who  were  called  'proselytes  of  the 
gate/  i.  e.  men  who  had  forsaken  idolatrous  worship  and 
given  themselves  vip  to  the  true  God  of  the  Israelites,  but 
had  not  submitted  to  circumcision  and  all  the  other  rites 
and  ceremonies  of  the  INIosaic  law,  (although  I  am  aware 
that  there  are  learned  men  now-a-days  who  call  this  in 
question,)  there  seems  to  me  to  be  no  doubt.  For,  besides 
that  the  centurion  is  called  by  St.  Luke  {evaeßr]<;  koI  (f)oßov- 
fievo^  Tov  Oeov),  "  a  devout  man,  and  one  that  feared  God/'  Acts  10. 2. 
and  {fj,apTvpov/jL€vo<i  viro  Ö\ov  tov  eOvois  tmv  ^lovSaicov),  '^ofver.  22. 
good  report  among  all  the  nation  of  the  Jews/'  which  words 
clearly  shew  that  he  was  decidedly  imbued  with  the  Jewish 
religion, — besides  this,  it  deserses  our  especial  attention 
that  St.  Peter,  in  his  discoui'se  to  Cornelius  and  his  house- 
hold,  proved  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah  from  the  books  of  the  ver.  43. 
Prophets,  which  he  surely  would  not  have  done  had  not  the 
writings  of  the  Prophets  been  both  well  known  and  of  autho- 
rity  with  the  centurion  and  those  who  were  with  him. 

§  3.  Cornelius  then  was  a  proselyte  to  the  Jewish  religion, 
but  of  the  lower  order,  i.  e.  '  a  proselyte  of  the  gate,'  one  not  "ij;Ei>  "ij 
properly  called  proselyte,  '  a  proselyte  of  righteousness  or  the  pnv  "ij 
covenant,'  inasmuch  as  he  was  not  circuracised,  as  we  learn  °^  ^^""^ 
Acts  xi.  3.     As  to  the  salvation  of  proselytes  of  this  order 
the  Jews  diflFered  in  opinion.     Some  denied  them  hope  of 
salvation  altogether,  as  appears  from  Acts  xv.  1 ;  most  how- 
ever,  inclined  to  the  milder  opinion,  and  gladly  believed  that 
these  pious   men  from  among  the   Gentiles  will   share  the 
blessings  of  a  future  life.     The  strongest  argument  for  this 
opinion  was,  that    cii'cumcision    was    not   cujoined    on   any 


34  Good  works  of  the  GentUes  acceptable  to  God. 

s  T  R I  c.  except  the  descendauts  of  Abraham,  nor  the  law  of  Moses 


Y. 


except  on  the  Israelites.     Hence  in  the  well-known  story  of 

10, 11,  12.  Izates,  king  of  the  Adiabeni,  \shich  is  told  in  Josephus,  we 

Antlq.  20.  read  that  Izates,  havdng  turned  from  the  worship  of  idols  to 

völ  i         ^^^^  °^  ^^^  ^^®  True  God,  was  not  content  with  this,  but 

p.  939.       wished  to  go  farther,  and  submit  to  circinncision,  {vo/xi^ovra 

fi7)  av  elvac  ßeßaico<;  ^lovhalov,  el  fxi]  TrepirefMOiTO,)   '  thinking 

that  he  was  not  a  Jew  to  anv  pm'pose  tili  he  was  circum- 

cised  j'  but  this  design  pleased  not  his  teacher  Ananias,  who 

reminded  the  king  {Swa/j-epov  avrov  koI  j^coph  irepnofiri'i  to 

Qelov  aeßeiv)  'that  he  could  serve  God  ^ithout  being  cir- 

cumcised.'     "What  however  the  Jews  thought  on  this  point, 

matters  not  much;   all  Christiaus  have  allowed  that  pious 

men  of  the  Gentiles,  who  were  really  pious,  pleased  God 

unto  salvation  without  circumcision ;  aud  that  Cornelius  was 

such  a  man,  is  clear  from  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

who  has  passed  upon  him,  as  I  observed  before,  this  elogium, 

that  he  was  "  a  devout  man  and  one  that  feared  God."  More- 

over  his  prayers  and  his  alms  are  said  to  have  ascended  up  to 

Acts  10.4.  Heaven  (et9  fimjfjböavvov  ivcoTriov  rov  &eov)  "for  a  memorial 

before  God."     In  these  words,  (as  learned  interpreters  have 

observed,)  a  similitude  is  drawn  from  the  incense  of  the  law, 

Lev.  2.      called  in  Hebrew  m3?X,  in  Greek  fivq/jiöavvov.     Doubtless  the 

et  ahbi.      "o-ords  moau,  that  the  prayers  and  alms  of  Cornelius  were 

most  pleasaut  and  acceptable  before  God,  wlüch  could  not 

be  said  of  the  works  of  a  maii  who  was  out  of  the  pale  of 

favour  and  salvation ;    and  therefore  had  Cornelius  died  in 

this  State,  without  doubt  he  would  have  attained  lifo  and 

salvation ;  and  yet  he  had  not  an  explicit  faith  in  Christ,  for 

he  had  not  heard  the  Gospel  of  Christ  fully  and  clearly  ex- 

plained.     But  afterwards,  when  this  was  done  by  St.  Peter, 

his  pious  soul  most  eagerly  and  heartily  embraced  the  faith 

of  Jesus  Christ. 

§  4.  When  after  this  you  say  that  ncither  the  pious  ccntu- 
rion  nor  any  other  worker  of  righteousness  was  ever  righteous 
in  God's  sight,  and  free  from  all  blame,  on  account  of  his 
inherent  righteousness,  if  you  mean  by  the  words  "on  ac- 
count of  his  inherent  righteoiisness,"  'on  account  of  the 
merit  of  his  inherent  righteousness/  you  are  beating  the  air ; 
who  says  the  contrary  ?     I  surely  do  not,  who  evcry  where 


AU  notiom  of  merit  disdaimed.  35 

disclaim  all  merit  of  all  human  righteousness,  and  teil  all  s  T  R  l  c. 

men  openly  that  I  trust  in  the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ^  my ; 

dearest  SaAdour,  as  the  sole  meritorious  cause  of  my  justifica- 
tion  and  salvation.  If  you  do  not  believe  a  professiou  I  have 
niade  so  often,  I  call  God  the  searcher  of  liearts  to  witness 
that  it  is  from  my  heart  I  have  Tnritten  these  words.  In 
your  remarks^  however,  you  are  continually  charging  me 
with  teaching  that  man  is  justified  in  God's  sight  on  account 
of  his  inherent  righteousnesSj  or  on  account  of  his  works, 
(i.  e.  on  account  of  the  merit  of  his  Tvorks) .  This  yoii  repeat 
tili  you  are  hoarse,  when  you  have  nothing  eise  to  say. 
Surely  this  does  not  become  a  Christian,  not  to  say  a  divine. 
Had  I  a  mind  to  repay  you  in  your  own  coin,  how  easily 
could  I  retort  this  calumny  on  your  head  ?  ^vitll  how  great 
appearance  of  truth,  how  great  speciousness  could  I  do  so? 
you  teach  continually  that  "a  man  is  justified  'for'  or  'on 
account  of  his  faith/'  that  ''an  Operation  wliich  is  the  cause 
of  our  righteousness  ought  to  be  attributed  to  faith,"  that 
" our  justification  is  '  founded'  on  our  faith."  Shoiüd  I  hence 
conclude  that  you  attribute  a  merit  to  faith  in  the  work  of 
justification  ?  God  forbid  !  I  believe  that  you  do  mean  some- 
thing  eise,  though  what  that  is,  I  am  totally  Ignorant. 

§  5.  Lastly,  you  advise  me  "take  heed  that  I  prate  not 
against  the  Holy  Spirit/'  But,  my  good  Sir,  "what  is  it  that 
you  mean?  that  he  who  does  not  receive  your  statements, 
forth-with  prates  against  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Take  heed  you  offer 
not  -wrong  to  His  Supreme  INIajesty,  by  appealing  to  Hirn  as 
the  Patron  and  even  the  Author  of  your  own  dreamings.  I 
can  do  no  more  than  beseech  that  Most  Holy  Spirit,  the  Com- 
forter,  the  only  Teacher  of  Tiiith,  that  He  may  be  pleased  by 
His  heavenly  Illumination  to  guide  both  me  and  you  into  all 
truth  necessary  or  useful  to  us. 

STRICTURE  VI. 

ON  I.  DISS.  ii.  5.  p.  13. 

Bringing   forward   by  the   way  a  passage   of   St.  Peter,  i  Pet.  1.2. 
I  remark  that  the  order  of  mau^s  salvation  is  well  described 
therein.     First  comes   "the  sanctification  of  the   Spirit  to 
obedience,"  {ayia(7fi6<;  7rv€VfiaTo<;  et?  viraKorjv :)    then  follows 

D  2 


36  Order  of  salvation  described,  i  Pet.  i.  2. 

S  T  R I C.  "  the  sprinkling  of  tlie  blood  of   Jesus   Christ^    {pavTiafio<i 

'■ —  OLfiaTo^  ^Irjaov  Xpiarov,)  i.  e.  to  justificatiou/^     Upon  this 

Vid.Tit.2.  you  remark,  "  How  absurdly  do  you  Interpret  St.  Peter,  in 
9*14^^^'  Order  that  he  may  support  your  owu  hypothesis  !  I  beg  to 
Rev.  1.  5.  ask  wbether  our  sanctification,  just  as  mucb  as  our  justifi- 

cation,  must  not  be  referred  to  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood 

of  Christ  ?" 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  VI. 

How  childishly  do  you  here  take  my  explanation  to  pieces, 
merely  to  indulge  your  insatiable  appetite  of  finding  fault. 
I  am  aware  that  our  sanctification  just  as  much  as  our  justi- 
fication  is  owing  to  the  blood  of  Christ;  Christ  by  His  blood, 
i.  e.  by  His  death,  obtained  for  us  the  grace  not  only  of  justi- 
fication,  but  also  of  sanctification.  Still,  he  'svho  has  not 
observed  that  our  sanctification  is  attributed  specially  by  the 
Scriptures  to  the  Spii'it  of  Christ,  Avhile  the  remission  of  our 
sins  (vvhieh  is  not  the  least  part  of  our  justification)  is 
attributed  to  His  blood  and  the  sprinkling  thereof,  surely 
cannot  have  read  the  Sacred  Volumes  with  the  care  and 
diligence  that  they  require.  I  have  no  time  just  now  to 
investigate  the  reasons  of  this  phraseology  of  Scripture, 
but  if  all,  who  suppose  the  words  in  this  passage  "by  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ"  to  mean  justification 
or  remission  of  sins,  are  fools,  then  truly  were  those  great 
Interpreters  Erasmus  and  Estius  fools — nay  (horrible  to 
say !  !)  your  own  Calvin  was  a  fool.  Erasmus  on  the  pas- 
sage speaks  thus  :  "  He  means  that  they  are  indebted  to  God 
for  having  been  chosen  to  the  grace  of  faith,  which  he  here 
calls  obedience,  that  through  this,  by  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus,  they  might  be  cleansed  from  their  sins."  In 
like  manner  Estius  :  "  The  remission  of  sins  is  called  '  the 
sjDrinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,^  because  no  one  is  cleansed 
from  his  sins  unless  he  be  sprinkled  with  it,  i.  e.  unless  the 
merit  of  Christ's  suffering  be  applied  to  him :  and  this 
sprinkling  or  application  is  made  by  the  obedience  of  faith." 
Here  you  have  (if  I  mistake  not)  the  true  meaniug  of 
the  passage.  Lastly,  Calvin,  "  By  the  word  '  obedience'  he 
seems  to  mean  newness  of  life,  but  by  '  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Christ'  remission  of  sins." 


Repentance,  a  condition  ofjustification.  37 

STRICTURE  VII. 

ON  I.  DISS.  ii.  6.  p.  14. 
Here  I  brinsr  forward  testimonies   of   Scriptui'e^  "  which  S  T  R  l  C. 

.  VII 

specify  some  particular  works  as  entirely  necessary  to  salva '- — 

tion/^  and  I  insist  on  tliose  passages  especially,  "which 
require  '  repentance^  as  a  precedent  condition  "without  which  sine  qua 
no  sinner  can  obtain  pardon  from  God."  Among  snch  a 
crowd  of  testimonies  I  confine  myself  to  two,  viz.  Acts  ii.  38, 
and  iii.  19.  I  say,  that  in  these  passages,  besides  faith,  re- 
pentance also  and  turning  to  God  are  reqnired  of  us  as 
necessary  for  the  reraission  of  our  sins,  or  justification.  Your 
answer  to  this  is,  "Christ  has  joined  repentance  with  faith  Markl.15. 
as  the  two  conditions  of  the  Gospel,  and  woe  be  to  him  who 
separates  them.  Bvit  produce  a  passage,  if  you  can,  which 
attribntes  justification  to  repentance.  Justification  is  not 
the  same  thing  as  remission  of  sins.  Wisdom  is  justified, 
God  is  justified,  Christ  was  justified ;  where  is  no  place  for 
reraission  of  sins.  Job  was  justified  from  the  calumny  of  the 
de^dl,  and  the  unjust  reproofs  of  bis  friends  :  and  yet  not  by 
remission  of  sins,  but  by  proof  of  his  integrity.  God  par- 
doned  the  Israehtes,  wliom  He  did  not  justify."  Ps.  78.  38. 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  VII. 

§  1.  I  have  no  doubt  the  learned  read  er,  who  is  not  ac- 
quainted  with  you  and  your  ways  of  proceeding,  will  wonder 
what  you  mean  in  this  Stricture.  I  am  by  this  tirae  too 
well  acquainted  with  you.  Now,  on  this  point,  nearly  the 
whole  strength  of  your  position  rests ;  and  if  you  are  A'icto- 
rious  here,  your  triumph  will  be  coraplete;  but  if  these 
forces  (as  I  expect  will  be  the  case)  be  routed  and  dispersed 
without  difficulty,  you  can  have  but  little  hope  of  renewing 
the  conflict.  I  intreat  the  reader,  therefore,  to  weigh  most 
attentively  the  arguments  on  both  sides.  That  repentance 
is  a  condition  necessarily  required  in  the  Gospel  covenant, 
you  allow,  but  you  deny  that  it  is  a  condition  ofjustification. 
You  do  not  deny  that  repentance  is  absolutely  required  for 


38  No  condition  enjoined  in  the  Gospel 

STRIC.  the  forgiveness  of  sins;  but  tou  deny  that  it  is  required  for 

^ — justification^  for  you  say  that  remission  of  sins  is  a  totally 

different  thing  from  justification. 

The  whole  of  this  controversy,  theu^  may  be  reduced  to 
foiir  heads.  1.  Whether  there  be  any  condition  (properly  so 
called)  of  the  Gospel  covenant  which  is  not  also  a  condition 
of  Gospel  justification?  2.  Whether,  granted  that  the  con- 
dition of  the  Gospel  covenant  may  be  distinct  fi-om  the  con- 
dition of  Gospel  justification,  it  is  not  still  certain  that  faith 
and  repentance  are  conditions  of  one  and  the  same  benefit, 
A'iz.  of  Gospel  justification?  3.  Whether  remission  of  sins 
comes  into  the  notion  or  definition  of  Gospel  justification  ? 
or  whether  the  notion  of  Gospel  justification  necessarily  in- 
cludes  remission  of  sins?  4.  Whether  it  being  gi-anted  that 
remission  of  sins  is  not  necessarily  included  in  the  notion  of 
Gospel  justification,  it  is  not  still  certain  that  the  condition 
of  both  benefits,  viz.  Gospel  forgiveness  and  justification,  is 
exactly  the  same  ?  Let  us  discuss  these  questions  separately, 
and  in  the  order  proposed. 

§  2.  The  first  question  is,  whether  there  be  a  condition 
(properly  so  called)  in  the  Gospel  covenant  which  is  not  also 
a  condition  of  Gospel  justification?  You  say  that  there  is, 
in  that  you  assert  that  repentance  is  a  condition  of  the 
Mark!. 15.  Gospel,  joiued  by  Christ  with  faith,  yet  impugn  my  saying 
that  repentance  is  a  condition  of  justification.  Elsewhere, 
however,  you  explain  yourself  more  fully,  viz.  in  yoiu'  notes 
to  page  21  of  my  book,  where  I  quotc  your  own  words. 
"  I  am  often  compelled  to  reiterate,  that  a  condition  of  the 
covenant  must  be  distinguished  from  the  foundation  of  justi- 
fication. There  are  many  conditions  of  the  Gospel  covenant ; 
there  is  one  only  foundation  of  justification  on  our  part, 
which  is,  on  the  authority  of  St.  Paul,  faith.^'  Here,  by  "  the 
foundation  of  our  justification  on  our  part,"  if  you  speak 
properly,  you  mean  the  condition  required  on  oui'  pait  for 
justification ;  inasmuch  as  all  '  right'  is  fonnded  in  the  title, 
and  the  title  is  'the  foundation  of  om'  right.'  This  title  or 
foundation  of  right,  is  called  by  divines  in  this  question,  the 
'  condition ;'  which  is  a  Word  used  by  lawyers,  and  is  thus 
defincd  by  them :  "  A  condition  is  the  Suspension  of  a  dis- 
positiou  on  an  event  as  yet  uncertain  annexed  to  it."     You 


ivhich  is  not  a  condition  ofjicstification  also.  39 

sav  then,  that  thouerh  there  are  rnanv  conditions  of  tlie  Gospel  S  T  R  l  C. 

*  ^  \  ....  VIT 

covenant,  there  is  but  one  condition   of  justification,  i.  e. 


faith.  To  this  statement  of  yours  I  oppose  the  foUowing 
assertion  as  anti-statement ;  "  there  is  one  and  the  same 
condition  (properly  so  called)  of  the  Gospel  covenaut  and  of 
Gospel  justification." 

§  3.  Here,  however,  some  things  mnst  be  premised,  in 
Order  to  define  the  state  of  the  question.  First,  we  must 
observe,  that  by  the  'condition^  of  the  Gospel  is  here  meant, 
not  whatever  is  enjoined  in  the  Gospel,  but  that  only  which 
is  required  at  the  peril  of  the  soul;  i.  e.  the  condition  on 
which  the  eterual  life  and  salvation  of  a  man  so  depends, 
that  if  performed,  a  man  Avill  attain  salvation,  if  not,  he  will 
have  no  hope  of  attaining  it ;  and  accordingly,  that  is  properly 
by  lawyers  called  a  condition  (as  I  remarked  just  now)  on 
which  the  disposition  depends.  We  are  enjoined  in  the 
Gospel  to  abstain  as  far  as  possible  frora  all  sin ;  but  this  is 
not  required  of  us  at  the  peril  of  our  souls,  or  under  the 
irrevocable  penalty  of  death,  (as  the  schoolmen  say,)  for  then 
very  few  indeed,  or  rather  none  "would  obtain  salvation. 
Yet,  that  ni  this  question  such  a  condition  must  be  uuder- 
stood  is  evident,  since  the  question  regards  'faith  and  re- 
pentauce;'  both  of  which,  all  allow,  'are  required  at  the 
peril  of  our  souls.'  2udly.  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  a  thing 
can  be  required  as  necessary  to  salvation  in  two  ways, 
'  absolutely,'  or  '  hypothetically.'  Faith  and  repeutance  are 
required  absolute!}",  with  whatever  appertains  necessarilj'  to 
their  essence,  i.  e.  all  Christian  virtues,  in  which  consists  the 
'di^dne  nature,'  or  heavenly  truth,  together  with  all  which  is  ^  öeTa 
comprehended  under  these  two  names  in  Scripture.  With-  t"p^^l'  j  4 
out  these,  no  one  ever  has  attained,  no  one  ever  will  attain 
salvation.  But  worthy  fruits  of  faith  and  repentance  (all 
which  are  usually  implied  in  the  words,  '  good  life'  or  '  holy 
conversation')  are  required  hypothetically,  \dz.  if  God  grant 
life  and  opportunity.  Thus  much  premised,  I  put  for^ard 
two  propositions  (which  contain  as  many  arguments  in  my 
favour,  and  those  of  the  strengest  kiud)  to  be  proved. 

§  4.  The  first  proposition  is  :  Nothing  is  absolutely  re- 
quired in  the  Gospel  covenaut  at  the  peril  of  the  soul,  Avhich 
is  not  required  for  justificatiou.     Tliat  this  proposition  is  one 


40  Repentance  and  faith 

S  T  R I C.  of  most  tmdeniable  tmth,  I  prove  by  this  argtiment :  If  any 

^—  thing  in  tlie  Gospel  covenant  were   absolut ely  reqiiired  at 

the  peril  of  the  soul  wbich  is  not  also  required  in  tlie  same 
covenant  for  justification,  then  it  were  possible  for  a  man  to 
perform  all  things  requisite  for  justificatiou,  and  be  justified 
accordingly^  who  yet  may  not  have  performed  all  that  is  ab- 
solutely  reqnired  in  the  Gospel  covenant  at  tlie  peril  of  bis 
soid.  Wbence  it  would  follow,  tliat  a  man  tliougb  justified, 
and  even  wbile  justified,  migbt  be  deprived  of  eternal  salva- 
tion,  and  accordingly  damned  eterually.  But  wbat  Christian 
does  not  utterly  abbor  such  a  conclusion  ?  Sui*ely  the  thing 
is  clear  and  evident  without  need  of  further  explanation. 

§  5.  The  second  proposition  is :  Nothing  is  requh-ed  hy- 
pothetically  in  the  Gospel  covenant  at  peril  of  our  souls, 
which  is  not  also  so  far  required  for  justification.  That 
course  and  conversation  (TroXtVeta)  of  good  works,  of  which  I 
have  often  spoken,  is  required  at  peril  of  the  soul  hypotheti- 
cally,  viz.  if  God  gi'ant  life  and  opportunity :  and  on  the 
same  supposition  it  is  required  also  for  justification.  He, 
who  after  having  once  obtained  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ 
by  meaus  of  faith  and  repentance^  does  not  thenceforth  go 
ou  in  a  continued  course  of  well-doing,  but  poUutes  himself 
by  sins  destroying  bis  conscience,  that  man  falls  from  bis 
right  to  salvation,  and  in  consequence  from  bis  justification : 
unless  indeed  you  affirm  that  a  man  wbile  still  abiding  in  a 
State  of  justification  can  fall  from  bis  right  to  salvation, 
which  I  have  just  now  proved  to  be  absiu'd,  as  is  indeed  self- 
evident.  See  our  remarks  II.  Diss.  xii.  29,  p.  162.  and  our 
quotations  from  the  most  learned  Davenant,  II.  Diss.  x^^ii.  10. 
p.  214.  The  foundation,  however,  of  these  two  propositions 
lies  in  this  third :  In  a  man's  justification  God  gives  him 
a  i'ight  to  salvation;  which  proposition  I  have  proved  at 
length  in  answer  to  Stricture  III.  Hence  the  conclusion 
is  as  clear  as  day-light,  that  nothing  can  be  required  in 
the  Gospel  either  to  gain  or  retain  a  right  to  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  which  is  not  equally  required  either  to  gain  or 
retain  one's  justification;  and  thus  much  then  for  the  first 
question. 

§  6.  The  second  question  is ;  whether,  granted  that  the 
condition  of  the  Gospel  covenant  may  bc  distinct  from  the 


conditions  of  the  same  henefit.  41 

condition  of  Gospel  justificatiorij  it  is  not  still  certain  that  s  T  R  i  c. 
faith  and  repentance  are   conditions  of  one   and  the   same  • 

benefit,  viz.  of  Gospel  justification.  I  will  here  speak  biit 
briefly.  You  allow  that  faith  is  of  necessity  required  to  a 
man's  justification;  moreover  you  acknowledge  that  repent- 
ance is  required  of  necessity  in  the  Gospel  covenant ;  but 
you  say  it  is  not  required  for  justification.  I  prove,  how- 
ever,  that  repentance  is  of  necessity  required  in  the  Gospel 
covenant,  and  that  too  to  man^s  justification,  by  these 
argumeuts.  First,  repentance  is  enjoined  in  the  law  of  the 
Gospel  on  a  sinner,  who  is  as  yet  a  stranger  to  grace  and 
salvation,  as  a  duty  to  be  performed  by  him  in  the  first 
place;  in  order  that  he  may  propitiate  God,  whom  he  has 
angered  and  set  against  himself  by  bis  sins,  or  (in  your  words) 
that  he  may  be  reconciled  to  God.  This  is  the  constant  and 
perpetual  teaching  of  the  Scriptures,  a  laborious  proof  of 
which  would  be  superfluous  among  Christians,  who  are  not 
quite  strangers  to  God's  word ;  and  to  the  same  effect  you 
yourself  expressly  allow  in  your  notes  to  page  8.  of  my  book, 
that  "repentance  is  requisite  for  reconcihation  ^vith  God." 
Hence  tlien  I  argue  thus :  Whatever  is  required  for  man^s 
reconcihation  witli  God,  is  required  for  man's  justification : 
repentance  is  required  for  man's  reconcihation  with  God : 
Therefore,  &c.  The  truth  of  the  minor  you  yourself  allow  in 
terms;  the  major  premiss  is  proved  easily;  if  whatever  is 
required  for  man's  reconcihation  with  God,  were  not  required 
for  man's  justification,  then  it  were  possible,  that  he  who  has 
done  all  things  requisite  for  justification,  and  is  really  justi- 
fied  accordingly,  may  not,  however,  have  done  what  is  requi- 
site for  his  reconcihation  with  God,  consequently  may  not 
yet  have  been  reconciled  to  God.  But  the  conclusion  is  most 
false;  therefore  also  the  premiss.  That  a  justified  person, 
from  the  very  fact  of  his  being  justified,  is  reconciled  with 
God,  no  one  in  his  senses  will  deny.  Hence  you  absurdly 
enough  deny  that  a  man  who  is  justified,  from  the  very  fact 
of  his  being  justified,  is  accepted  by  God  unto  salvation — yet 
you  allow  that  a  man  who  is  justified,  from  the  very  fact  of 
his  being  justified,  is  acquitted  of  the  guilt  of  all  his  sins, 
and  pronounced  rightcous  by  God ;  and  consequently  no 
longer  liable  to  tlie  wrath  of  God  due  to  his  sins. 


42  Remission  ofsins  implied  in  justification. 

s  T  R I  c.      §  7.  !My  other  argnunent,  somewhat  akin  to  the  former, 

: is  of  this  nature :  Repentance  is  either  required  for  man's 

justification,  er  not  required  at  all.  You  allow  that  it  is 
required.  But,  if  it  is  required,  it  is  required  either  from  a 
man  "who  is  to  be  justified,  or  from  a  man  ^vlio  is  already 
justified.  That  repentance  is  not  required  from  a  man 
already  justified  is  shewn  by  our  Lord's  Avords,  speaking  of 
Luke  1-5. 7.  just  men, — [ort  ■)(p€iav  ovk  c^oimtl  fjt^eravoia^) — "they  need  no 
repentance" — viz.  tliat  entire  repentance,  by  which  tbe  wbole 
kind  of  life  is  cbanged,  and  a  man  leaves  a  state  of  sin  and 
deatb,  for  a  state  of  grace  and  salvation  :  and  of  tbis  repent- 
ance alone  we  are  bere  speaking.  Therefore  tbis  repentance 
is  required  from  a  man  wbo  is  to  be  justified,  and  in  order 
to  bis  justification;  it  goes  before  justification,  and  disposes 
a  man  to  receive  tbe  free  grace  of  justification.  "  For  Divine 
mercy,"  as  Davenant  says,  "  does  not  justify  Stocks,  i.  e.  tbose 
wbo  do  notbing ;  nor  yet  borses  and  mules,  i.  e.  tbose  wbo 
kick  against  Hirn,  and  stick  obstinately  to  tbeir  own  lustsj 
but  men,  and  tbose  pricked  in  beart  and  contrite,  and  follow- 
ing  tbe  leading  of  tbe  "Word  and  Spirit  of  God.^'  Certainly 
one  cannot  but  look  on  it  as  a  prodigy,  tbat  learned  and 
sensible  men  sbould  be  blind  in  so  piain  a  matter.  I  pass 
to  tbe  tbird  question. 


§  8.  Tbe  tbird  question  is — Wbetber  remission  of  sins 
comes  into  tbe  notion  or  definition  of  Gospel  justification? 
or  vbetber  tbe  notion  of  Gospel  justification  includes  remis- 
sion of  sins.  I  ans  wer  in  tbe  afl&rmatire,  you  in  tbe  nega- 
tive. Your  opinion  on  tbis  point  you  borrowed  (as  I  learnt 
from  tbe  unfinisbed  -vrork  wbicb  no  long  time  back  you 
pubbsbed  after  your  fatber's  deatb,  "vntb  little  consideration 
for  bis  good  name)  from  your  very  leamed  fatber  T.  G., 
wbose  praises  I  sbould  bare  bad  great  pleasure  in  recounting, 
had  you  been  süent  tbereupon.  Xerertbeless  with  your 
leare,  cbanging  tbe  names,  I  will  use  your  o\m  ■vrords  in 
tbe  notes  on  page  7.  of  my  book  on  Hammond,  a  man  of 
tbe  bigbest  reputation,  and  at  least  equal  to  your  fatber. 
"  Tbe  most  leamed  and  pious  T.  G.,  wbose  memory  I  esteem 
and  bonour,  was  not  infalbble,  and  bas  often  stumbled  in 
tbis  argument."  I  saw  by  cbance  a  MS.  in  wbicb  two 
great  di\ines  are  described  as  entering  into  a  friendly  con- 


Remissian  not  the  whole  of  justification.  43 

troversy  on  the  subject  of  justification.     Here  was  a  System  STRIC. 

of  justification,  with  yoiir  father^s  name  attached  to  it,  very '- — 

ingenious,  like  its  author,  and  drawn  out  with  no  small 
labour ;  but  such  as  in  matter  of  fact  was  not  approved  of  by 
either  of  these  divines.  Certainly  the  ideas  of  the  leamed 
gentleman  on  this  point,  which  you  have  undertaken  to 
defend,  are  stränge  and  novel,  and  opposed  to  the  sentiments 
of  nearly  all  the  reformed  divines.  But  to  our  purpose.  In 
sifting  this  question,  I  will  first  endeavour  to  establish  my 
own  Statement,  and  then  refute  your  father^s  and  your  own 
opinion.  I  will  accomplish  my  first  task  thus.  First,  I  will 
explaiu  the  state  of  the  question ;  then  I  will  bring  forward 
the  arguments  for  my  opinion :  lastly,  I  will  answer  your 
father's  and  your  own  objections, 

§  9.  First  as  regards  the  state  of  the  question — Ist,  it 
must  be  remarked  that  we  do  not  assert  that  remission  of 
sins  is  the  whole  of  justification,  or  that  it  fills  up  the  whole 
length  and  breadth  of  the  idea  of  Gospel  justification.  '  To 
justify'  (as  the  word  is  iised  in  the  N.  T.  on  this  point)  is 
more  than  'to  remit  sins,^  inasmuch  as  justification  contains 
also  the  Imputation  of  reward,  as  I  have  shewn  at  some 
length  above,  and  therefore  all  that  we  maintain  is,  that  re- 
mission of  sins  is  included  and  comprehended  in  the  notion 
of  justification,  or  is  one  act  of  Gospel  justification.  You,  on 
the  contrary,  assert  plainly  that  "  remission  of  sins  is  an  act 
entirely  extraneous  to  justification,"  in  your  notes  at  page 
16.  of  my  book.  2ndly,  it  must  be  observed  that  we  do 
not  assert  that  the  word  justification,  of  itself,  imphes  the 
remission  of  sins ;  we  are  aware  and  allow  that  there  may  be 
cases  of  justification  where  there  is  no  place  for  remission. 
In  a  human  court,  if  an  innocent  man  is  brought  to  trial,  he 
is  acquitted  according  to  the  law  by  the  declaration  of  a  just 
judge,  i.  e.  he  is  justified;  but  nothing  is  remitted  to  him, 
because  he  is  not  guilty  of  any  crime ;  and  therefore  you  toil 
in  vain  to  prove  that  which  no  man  in  his  senses  has  ever  yet 
denied.  You  must  remember,  my  good  Sir,  that  this  is  a 
question  touching  Gospel  justification,  or  the  justification  of 
a  sinner  by  the  law  of  the  Gospel.  Here  we  confidently  and 
without  any  hesitation  declare,  that  Gospel  justification 
necessarilv  includes  remission  of  sins,  and  accordiuclv  that  a 


44  Gospel jmtification  explained from  Scripture. 

STRic.  sinner  can  be  justified  by  the  Gospel  covenant  in  no  other 
way  than  by  the  remission  of  sin.  Grotius,  as  usualj  com- 
Lib.  de  pi'ises  the  whole  in  few  words  :  "  Justification,"  he  says,  "  as 
Satisfact.  jg  ^gji  known  every  where  in  Holy  Scripture,  more  especially 
cap.  1.  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  signifies  acqnittal,  which  (sin  being 
^'  *  presupposed)  consists  in  the  remission  of  sins,  as  St,  Paul 
himself  plainly  declares,  especially  Rom.  iv.  2,  6."  I  would 
that  this  great  man  had  not  afterwards  tui'ned  from  this  most 
genuine  notion  of  justification  to  another.  3rdly,  it  must 
be  particularly  remarked,  that  when  we  assert  that  remission 
of  sins  is  iucluded  and  comprehended  in  the  notion  of  justifi- 
cation, MC  do  not  mean  a  bare  and  simple  remission  of  sins, 
but  a  remission  of  such  a  kind  as  is  granted  on  satisfaction 
having  been  made  according  to  some  covenant,  or  law,  and 
on  certain  conditions.  For  we  are  talking  (as  I  am  obliged 
often  to  repeat)  of  Gospel  justification,  consequeatly  of  that 
remission  of  sins  which  is  granted  in  accordance  with  the 
Gospel  covenant  ratified  by  Christ's  blood,  and  under  certain 
conditions  prescribed  and  required  in  that  same  covenant. 
He  who  attends  to  these  three  things  will  easily  perceive  the 
truth  of  my  Statement,  and  vriW  be  able  of  himself,  without 
other  aids,  to  solve  the  objections  which  you  and  yoiu'  father 
have  brought  against  it.  Nevertheless  I  will  proceed  in 
sifting  the  question  according  to  the  plan  I  proposed. 

§  10.  And  so,  in  the  second  place,  the  arguments  for  my 

Statement  must  be  brought  forward.     Here,  howerer,  I  will 

contend  on  the  sole  testimony  of  Scripture ;  for  what  Gospel 

justification   is,   may  be    gathered,  by  the  best   and  surest 

reasoning,  from  those  passages  of  the  New  Testament  in 

which  it  is  described,  and,  as  it  were,  professedl}^  explained. 

I    will   begin    with    a   well   known   passage   quoted   in    the 

Acts  13.     Harmony;    "  Be  it  known  unto  you,  therefore,   raen  and 

'     ■       brethren,  that  through  this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the 

forgiveness  of  sins  :  and  by  Hirn  all  that  believe  are  justified 

näs  6        from  all  things,  from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the 

m^T^icy    1j^^  of  Moses."     I  Said  that  Hammond  had  well  determined 

otKaiovrai. 

SiKaiow.  that  from  this  passage  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  '  justify,' 
in  St.  Paulis  Epistles,  could  be  best  infcrred.  You  do  not 
agrce,  however,  with  this  opinion  of  Ilammond,  and  you  ac- 
cordingly  ask,  "Why,  I  pray,  ought  the  meaning  of  the  word 


The  same  as  forgiveness  ofsins.  45 

to  be  gatliered  from  this  text  ratlier  tlian  from  the  long  dis-  s  T  R  l  c. 

course  of  St.  Paul  himself,  the  veiy  purpose  of  wliicli  is  to 

elucidate  the  sum  of  the  Gospel,  as  consisting  chiefl}^  in  the 
righteousness  which  is  by  faith?"     But  in  truth,  whether 
from  having  been  carried  away  with  the  too  eager  desire  of 
impugning  Hammond  with  or  without  reason,  or  of  defending 
your  own  rashly  preconceived  opinion^  you  have  failed  to 
remai'k   that   you  have   rejeeted  even   your    great    Calvin's 
opiniou,  not  to  mention  the  lesser  lights^  the  di\-iues  who 
followed  Calvin.     His  words  on  the  passage  are  as  follows : 
"This  passage   shews   plainly  wliat   the  force  of  the   word 
'justify'  is  in  other  places."     And  this  indeed  is  quite  piain; 
for  there  is  scarcely  another  passage  in  which  the  idea  of 
Gospel  justification  is  explained  more  fully.     Your  question 
is  futile,  sinee   the  idea  of  justification  put  forth  in  that 
passage  is  St.  Paulis  owu,  and  excellently  well  agrees  with 
his  long  argument  of  which  you  speak.     Let  us,  however, 
(apart  from  authorities,  either  Hammond  or  CaMn,)  examine 
the  passage  itself  freely  and  fully.     JNIy  words  are  :  "  whence 
it  is  extremely  clear,  that  the  justification  Avliich  is  preached 
in  the  Gospel  of  Christ^  is  nothing  eise  than  the  gracious 
act  of  God,  by  which  for  Christas  sake  He  acquits  those  who 
truly  believe,  viz.  those  endowed  with  a  perfected  faith,  and 
frees  them  from  the  guilt  and  punishment  of  all  sins^  even 
the  greatest/'  &c. ;    and  what^  I  ask^  can  be  cleai'er  than  l.  Diss.  i. 
tliis  ?  you  will  say  perhaps,  (what  you  do  say  afterwards,  and  '  P"  ^' 
nothing  eise  have  you  to  say,)  that  'justification  from  sins^in 
this  passage  means  acquittal  not  only  from  guilt  and  punish- 
ment, but  from  the  härm  also  and  fault  of  sin,  and  so  is  a 
very  different  thing  from  remission  of  sins.     By  this  answer, 
(besides  that  you  are   defending  a  manifest   absurdity,  \iz. 
that  a  man,  who  has  been  once  involved  in  sin,  can  be  freed 
from  the  very  fault  of  sin ;  of  which  we  will  speak  more  at 
length  presently,)  you  contradict  in  the  most  piain  terms  the 
text  itself,  in  which  '  the  justifying,'  ver.  39,  is  expressly  ex-  SiKaicoa-is. 
plained  by  'the  forgiveness  of  sins,^  ver.  38;  for  not  only  do  &<pf<ris^ 
interpreters  (with  the  single  exception  of  Grotius)  agree,  but  "■^"■P'^^'^^- 
it  is  clear  of  itself,  that  the  same  benefit  of  remission  which 
the  Apostle  had  briefly  mentioned  ver.  38,  he  explains  more 
fully  ver.  39,  by  shewing  both  its  condition,  viz.  faith  in 


46  This  held  by  Calvin,  Musculus,  Parcms,  ^r. 

STRIC.  Christ,,  and  its  superiority  to  that  remission  which  tlie  law  of 

'- —  ]Moses  gi'anted :    and  this  I  have  ah'eady  remarked  in  the 

Harraouv^  p.  8. 

§  11.  From  this  passage  I  pass  to  another  equally  clear: 

Rom.  4.  "  Even  as  Da^dd  also  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man 
unto  whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without  works,  say- 
ing,  Blessed  are  they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose 
sins  are  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will 
not  impnte  sin."  By  these  words  St.  Paul  proves  '  that 
righteousness  is  imputed  to  a  man/  or  that  a  man  is  justified 
^without  works/  from  the  testimony  of  David  asserting  the 
blessedness  of  the  man  to  wliom  God  forgives  sins.  And 
what  force  is  there  in  the  Apostle's  argumenta  unless  you 
hold  that  a  man's  justification  consists,  at  least  partly,  in  the 
forgiveness  of  sins?  If  ^justification'  and  'forgiveness  of 
sins'  are  so  separate  from^  and  unconnected  withj  each  other, 
as  you  maintain,  surely  the  Apostle  would  have  been  arguing 
in  this  passage  (as  they  say)  round  corners ;  and  accordingly 
if  I  am  convieted  byyou  of  unsound  reasoning  herein,  I  have 
my  consolation : — I  prefer  being  wrong  with  the  blessed 
Apostle  to  thinking  rightly  with  you.  But  see  how  much 
more  widely  still  you  differ  from  the  greatest  interpreters 
(among  the  refonners)  in  the  exposition  of  this  passage. 
Calvin  writcs  thus  on  the  passage :  "  By  these  words  we 
learn  that  'righteousness'  with  St.  Paul  is  uothing  eise  than 
the  '  forgiveness  of  sins.' "  Here  Calvin's  statement,  that 
righteousness  is  nothing  eise  than  forgiveness  of  sins,  must 
be  explained  fi'om  otlier  passages  of  his  writings,  in  which 
he  confesses  plainly,  that  besides  forgiveness  of  sins,  "  the 
imputation  of  righteousness"  also  is  contained  in  the  notion 
of  justification.  Musculus  writes  thus  on  the  passage  :  "  The 
third  argument  is  a  declaration  Jind  confirmation  of  the 
second;  justification  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins;  thercfore  we 
are  not  justified  on  account  of  our  worthiness  and  desert." 

dub.  5.  Lastly  Parasus,  in  explanation  of  the  chapter :  "  That  the 
Apostle  places  justification  solely  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
is  evident  from  ver.  6 ;  for '  to  pronouuce  blessed/  '  to  impnte 
righteousness/  '  to  forgive  sins/  '  to  cover  iniquities/  '  not  to 
impute  sins/  are  used  by  the  Apostle  as  cquivalent  terms." 
If  one  is  here  ofiFended  by  the  word  'solely/  we  may  re- 


St.  Luke  xviii.  13, 14,  and  Acts  xxvi.  17,  I8,  prove  the  same.     47 

member  that  it  may  be  explained  in  the  same  way  as  Cal-  STRIC. 
vin's  Avords  above  mentioned.  '- — 

§  12.  A  third  passage,  whicli  is  clear  and  plain,  occurs 
Luke  xräi.  13,  14,  wbere  tbese  two  expressions  are  taken 
as  equivalent,  '^iz.  'to  be  merciful  to  a  sinner/  (wLicb  is 
nothing  eise  than  'to  forgive  a  sinner  his  sins/)  and  'to 
justify  a  sinner/  For  when  Christ  mentioned  the  words  of 
the  publican  praying  God  "  Be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner,"  He 
goes  on  to  remind  us  what  was  the  eflect  of  that  prayer ;  "  I 
teil  you,  this  man  went  down  to  his  house  justified,"  &c. 
Hear  what  Cahäu  says  on  this  passage :  "  This  passage,"  he 
says,  "teaches  plainly  what  it  is  'to  be  justified'  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  word,  viz.  to  stand  before  God  as  though  we  were 
righteous.  For  the  publican  is  not  said  to  be  justified  because 
he  had  acquired  any  new  quality,  but  because,  his  guilt  ha^dng 
been  cancelled,  and  his  sins  done  away,  he  obtained  favour." 
Whence  it  follows  that  '  righteousness  consists  in  the  remis- 
sion  of  sins/ 

§  13.  There  is  also  a  well  known  passage,  Acts  xxvi.  17,  18, 
where  St.  Paul  is  said  to  be  sent  by  Christ  to  the  Gentiles, 
"  to  open  their  eyes  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light, 
and  from  the  poAver  of  Satan  unto  God,  that  they  may  re- 
ceive  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  inheritance  among  them  which 
are  sanctified  by  faith  that  is  in  Him."  For  who  doubts 
but  that  '  to  receive  forgiveness  of  sins  and  an  inheritance 
among  the  sanctified  by  faith  in  Christ'  means  the  same 
as  when  it  is  elsewhere  said,  'to  be  justified  by  faith  in 
Christ?^  Therefore  he  who  is  justified,  by  the  very  fact  of 
his  being  justified,  receives  these  two  benefits  from  God 
through  Christ,  "forgiveness  of  sins,"  {äcpeaiv  ä/xapTiojv,) 
"  and  an  inheritance  among  them  that  are  sanctified,"  («X?}- 
pov  iv  TOL<i  rjyiacr/jievoi^)  i.  e.  'a  right  to  a  heavenly  inheritance 
with  all  other  saints,^  as  I  shewed  above  by  many  arguments. 
These  two  benefits  fill  up  the  whole  nature  and  idea  of  Gospel 
justification,  in  the  füll  extent  of  its  signification. 

§  14.  A  fifth  argument  may  be  drawn  from  some  parallel 
passages,  ^dz.  "  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  His  Epli.  l.  7. 
blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  His 
grace."     "  In  whom  we  have  redemption  through  His  blood,  Col.  1.14. 
even  the  forgiveness  of  sins."     "  For  all  have  sinned,"  &c.  Rom.  3. 

23,  24. 


48  The  whole  Gospel  comp-isedunder  repentance  andforgiveness. 

s  T  R  I  c.  "  Being  justified  freely  by  His  grace  througli  the  redemption 

^^^'      that  is  in  Christ  Jesus."     "  Being  justified  by  His  blood,  we 

shall  be  saved  from  "wrath."     "\Miat  is  said  in  the  two  last 

Rom.  5. 9.  passages,  '  tlie  being  justified  tbrougb  tbe  redemption  that 
is  in  Christ  Jesus/  and  ^the  being  justified  by  the  blood  of 
Christ/  is  called  in  the  former  passages  'the  ha^dng  re- 
demption through  the  blood  of  Christ.'  But  this  St.  Paul 
expressly  explains  in  the  same  passages  by  '  the  having  for- 
giveness  of  sins'  (e%eti/  äc^eaiv  TrapaTTTcofidrcov),  or  {dfiapTtcov). 
For  the  words  '' forgiveness  of  sins'^  are  put  in  apposition 
with  the  former  in  this  way:  "in  whom  we  have  redemption, 
i.  e.  forgiveness  of  sins."  And  in  this  all  intei-preters  agi'ee. 
Now  from  all  the  passages  here  collated  it  is  clearer  than 
the  day,  that  '  to  have  redemption  in  Christ  Jesus/  or  '  to  be 
justified  by  the  redemption  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus/  and 
'  to  have  forgiveness  in  Christ  Jesus^  are  equivalent. 

§  15.  Lastly,  our  opinion  is  confirmed  by  those  passages 
where  the  whole  of  the  Gospel  is  comprised  under  these 
tAvo  heads,  riz.  ^repentance  and  forgiveness  of  sins.^  In 
Luke  xxiv.  47,  our  Lord  says  that  'repentance  andremission 
of  sins'  were  to  be  preached  in  His  name  '  among  all  nations.' 
In  Acts  V.  31,  "  Him,  (Christ,)  hath  God  exalted  with  His 
right  band  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  for  to  give  repent- 
ance to  Israel  and  forgiveness  of  sins."  In  these  passages 
the  announcement  of  the  Gospel  is  made  in  two  parts,  'a 
demand,  and  a  promise.'  Repentance  is  demanded,  under 
which  the  whole  of  obedience  is  comprised;  forgiveness  of  sins 
is  promised,  in  which  is  contained  justification,  and  the 
acceptance  of  a  man  to  eternal  salvation.  Yet  these  would 
not  be  contained  thercin,  if,  as  you  thiuk,  forgiveness  of  sins 
were  an  act  wholly  extraneous  to  justification.  But  under  the 
Word  'repentance'  obedience  is  comprised,  because  repentance 
is  the  chief  part  of  that  obedience  :  so  in  the  word  '  forgive- 
ness' the  whole  of  justification  is  implied,  because  forgiveness 
of  sins  is  no  small  part  of  our  justification.  Hence  it  is 
that  in  the  well  known  passage,  Heb.  riii.  12,  all  that  is 
simply  promiscd  by  God  in  the  New  Covenant,  (it  is  true,  our 
sanctification  also  is  there  promiscd,  or  the  writiug  of  God's 
law  in  our  heart;  but  that  is  not  simply  promised,  but  is  even 
exacted  in  some  degree  as  a  duty  of  ours,  and  has  reference 


Objedion  from  the  shHct  meaning  ofthe  word.  49 

to  a  condition  required  on  our  part,)  is  contained  in  these  S  T  R  l  C. 
words :  '^  I  will  be  merciful  to  tlieir  unrighteousness,  and '- — 


tlieir  sins  and  tlieir  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more." 
To  wliom  God  grants  forgiveness  of  sins,  to  liim  He  even 
tliereby  grants  all  tliings.  By  all  tliis,  I  think  I  have  proved 
sufficiently  tliat  Gospel  justification  includes  in  its  idea  for- 
giveness of  sins,  which  was  wliat  I  liad  to  prove. 

§  16.  I  will  now,  in  the  tliird  place,  answer  tlie  objections 
brouglit  by  you  and  your  learned  fatlier  on  tlie  opposite 
side.  Here  I  will  follow,  step  by  step,  the  footmarks  of  your 
father,  weighing  thoroughly  and  accurately  the  argumenta 
adduced  in  his  posthumous  writings  against  the  common 
sentiments  of  the  reformed  divines.  With  your  leave  I  will 
adopt  this  plan,  especially  as  you  have  brought  no  objection 
that  you  have  not  borrowed  from  your  father,  and  some 
things  are  adduced  by  him,  which  you  have  omitted. 

§  17.    Objection  I.    The  first  argument  of  the  learned 
man  is  di-awn  from  the  strict  and  most  proper  meaning  of 
the  word  'justification/  as  it  is  received  in  the  Old  or  New 
Testament.     Never,  he  says,  is  the  word  there  used  in  the 
sense  of  '  forgiveness  of  sins.'     Tliis  he  proves  by  a  sort  of 
induction  of  passages  in  which  the  word  justification  or  its 
inflexions  are  found.     In  all  these,  he  says,  Substitute  in  the 
place  of  '  to  justify,'  '  to  forgive  sins  •'  in  the  place  of  the 
word  '  justification,^  '  forgiveness   of  sins ;'  in  the  place   of 
'justified,'  'he  whose  sins  are  forgiven/  and  see  if  the  sense 
be  quite  suited  to  the  passage  where  the  word  occurs ;  or 
rather,  whether  the  meaning  be  not  only  discordant  (with  the 
sense  of  the  passage),  but  also  evidently  absurd.     He  brings 
forward  many  passages  of  Scripture  by  way  of  examplcs. 
"  Read,'^  says  he,  "  the  words  of  Judah  to  Joseph  :  '  How  shall  Gen.  44. 
we  clear  ourselves.'     Read  the  words  of  Moses  respecting     ' 
the  judges :  'They  sliall  justify  the  righteous,  and  condemn  Deut.25.l. 
the   wicked.^      Read   David's  words    to    God  :   '  That  Thou  Ps.  51.  4. 
mightest  be  justified  when  Thou  speakest.'     Job's  words  to 
his  friends  :  '  God  forbid  that  I  should  justify  you.'     Christ's  Job  27.  5. 
of  the  sons  of  wisdom  :  '  Wisdom  is  justified  of  her  children.'  Mat.  11. 
The    Apostle's    words    concerning    hiraself :    '  For    I   know  j  q^^  ^  ^ 
nothing  by  mysclf,  yet  am  I  not  hereby  justified  V  or  con- 
cerning our  Saviour :  '  Justified  in  the  Spirit.'     Read,"  he  i  Tim.  3. 

BULL.  j;  "• 


50  Used  differently  under  the  Gospel. 

STRIC.  saySj  ^'tliese  passages  in  tliis  way,  (not  to  mention  all  the 

'■ —  others),  aud  you  will  affix  a  sense  to  the  words  whGlly  un- 

suitable,  nay,  thoroughly  repugnant  to  the  meauing  of  those 
by  whoin  the  words  were  iittered."  I  aiiswer — A  specious 
objection  enough ;  but  one  which  is  easilj'  refuted  by  what 
we  laid  down  in  determining  the  state  of  the  question.  For, 
first,  we  have  granted  that  the  word  justification  does  not 
necessarily  or  of  itself  mean  forgiveness  of  sins ;  but  we  say 
that  such  is  the  use  of  the  word,  that  when  applied  to  the 
law  and  tribunal  of  the  Gospel,  it  includes  in  its  meaning 
forgiveness  of  sins;  to  wit,  ^to  justify^  is  'to  pronounce 
righteous.'  Now,  this  is  properly  said  of  him  who  is  truly 
just  and  free  from  fault.  In  this  war  no  sinner  can  be 
justified.  For  it  is  impossible  without  a  piain  contradiction, 
that  he  who  has  once  been  eutangled  in  sin  should  be  pro- 
nounced  by  God  truly  righteous  and  free  from  fault,  i.  e.  as 
thougli  he  had  never  committed  sin.  Therefore  the  word 
justification,  transferred  to  the  law  aud  tribunal  of  the 
Gospel,  and  used  of  the  acquittal  of  a  sinner,  cannot  be 
taken  in  its  original  sense.  He  is  justified  in  this  coiirt 
and  by  this  law,  of  whom  God  declares  that,  on  the  most 
just  grounds,  his  guilt  hanng  been  cancelled  and  bis  sins 
done  away,  it  has  seemed  good  to  His  wisdom,  justice,  and 
goodness,  to  treat  such  an  one  as  righteous.  Secondly,  no 
passage  is  brought  forward  by  the  learned  gentleman,  where 
mention  is  made  of  the  general  justification  of  a  sinner 
according  to  the  Gospel  covenant,  (the  only  matter  in  dis- 
pute,) to  which  his  own  rule  cannot  most  fitly,  and  without 
altering  the  real  meaning  of  the  passage,  be  applied.  And 
so  his  induction  is  lame  and  imperfect.  In  all  the  passages 
where  mention  is  made  of  the  general  justification  of  a  sinner, 
according  to  the  Gospel  covenant,  if  instead  of  the  word 
'justification'  or  its  inflcxions  you  Substitute  'forgiveness  of 
sins'  or  its  inflexions,  you  will  get  a  very  good  aud  consistent 
meaning.  Thus  all  the  places  where  man  is  said  to  be  jus- 
tified by  faith,  can  be  explained  most  suitably,  and  accord- 
ingly  ought  to  be  explained  in  this  way ;  by  faith  a  man's 
sins  are  forgiven,  and  a  right  to  eternal  life  and  salvation  is 
granted  him  by  the  Gospel  covenant :  and  that  this  is  the 
füll  meaning  of  Gospel  justification,  I  have  already  shcwn 


Ansiver  to  the  second  ohjection.  51 

by  many  arguments.     Nay,  I  liave  brought  forward  manysTRic. 

passages  of  Scripture  where  Gospel  justification  is  expressly ' — 

explaiued  by  forgiveness  of  sins ;  all  wbich  it  is  unfair  to  set 
aside  for  any  man's  grammatical  subtleties,  be  he  never  so 
learned. 

§  18.  Objection  II.     It  is  e^ddent  that  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  justification   are    different    things.      For   it  is    an   un- 
questioned  axiom,  that  things  which  differ  in  subject,  dift'er 
from  each  other.     And  that  forgiveness  of  sins  and  justifica- 
tion differ  in  subject  is  equally  e^ddent.     For  there  may  be 
justification  where  there  is  no  place  for  forgiveness  of  sins, 
and,  vice  versa,  there  may  be  forgiveness  of  sins  Avhere  there 
can  be  no  justification.     The  learned  man  proves  both  by 
examples  taken  from  Scripture.     If  any  one,  he  says,  does 
me  an  injury,  I  can  forgive  him  the  fault,  while  yet  in  my 
judgment  and  thinking  I  do  not  justify  him;  vice  versa,  he  2Sam.  li). 
who  is  falsely  accused  of  doing  a  wrong  to  another,  may  be  ^'ß-'^xin^s 
justified ;  yet  nothing  is  forgiven  him,  inasmuch  as  he  is  free  2.  8,  9. 
from  fault'  P'^f  ^^- 

1,  &c. 

I  answer,  first,  we  allow  at  once,  that  many  examples  may 
be  found  which  shew  that  there  may  be  forgiveness  where 
there  is  no  place  for  justification,  and  vice  versa,  But  we 
must  not  forget  that  the  question  is  solely  in  reference  to 
Gospel  forgiveness  and  justification ;  and  surely  these  two  do 
not  differ  in  subject.  God  forgives  no  one  his  sins,  according 
to  the  Gospel,  whom  He  does  not  justify;  and  reciprocally, 
He  justifies  no  one  whose  sins  He  does  not  forgive.  The 
example,  which  the  learned  gentleman  afterwards  adduces,  of 
the  rebellious  Israelites,  whose  sins  God  is  said  to  have  for- 
given, while  it  is  certain  that  they  were  not  justified  by  God,  Ps.  78. 37, 
I  should  not  have  expected  from  a  man  of  his  candour  and  '^^' 
good  sense ;  it  being  evident  that  a  füll  remission  is  not  meant 
there,  of  which  alone  we  are  speaking;  and  accordingly  he 
corrects  him  seif,  and  allows  in  terms  that,  as  regards  the 
general  state  (to  use  his  own  expression)  and  condition  of 
man,  God  forgives  no  man  his  sins  whom  He  does  not  justify ; 
so  that  this  argument,  even  by  his  own  decision,  does  not  bear 
on  the  point.  Secondly,  since  the  controversy  turns  on  Gos- 
pel forgiveness,  it  is  piain  that  not  a  '  bare'  and  '  simple'  for-  nudam  et 
giveness  is  meant,  (such  as  is  that  when  a  man  simply  forgives  ^""^  ^'^^™' 

E  2 


52  Answer  to  the  third  objection, 

s  T  R I  c.  another,  who  has  injured  liira,  liis  offence,)  but  a  forgiveness, 

— —-^ — if  I  may  so  call  it,  'legitimate'  or  (conditional),  \yliicli  is 
'  graüted  according  to  a  certain  law  and  on  certain  conditions ; 
a  bare  forgiveness  is  not  only  not  always,  but  never  the  same 
as  j^^stification.  He  wliose  sins  are  simply  forgiven^  can  in 
no  sense  be  said  to  be  justified;  since  it  is  evident  that 
justification  is  a  term  of  law.  On  tlie  otlier  band,  a  legiti- 
mate  forgiveness,  or  tbat  Avhicli  is  granted  according  to  a 
certain  law  and  on  certain  conditions,  is  rightly  called  justi- 
fication, and  is  always  tbe  same  as  the  justification  of  a 
person  wbo  is  forgiven  according  to  a  law.  A  good  example 
of  this  occurs  in  human  matters :  a  king  who  has  subjects 
in  rebellion,  and  guilty  of  high  treason,  offers  them  pardon 
for  what  they  have  done,  under  certain  conditions;  for 
instance,  that  within  a  stated  day  they  lay  down  their  arms, 
surrender  themselves  to  him,  and  bind  themselves  by  an 
oath  of  fidelity  for  the  future.  Here  the  rebel  subject,  if  he 
perform  the  condition,  obtains  the  pardon  of  bis  crimes 
according  to  the  law  of  the  prince,  or  is  acquitted  of  the 
Charge  of  treason  by  the  same  law,  i.  e.  he  is  justified.  Such 
is  the  justification  of  a  sinner  by  the  law  of  grace  promulgated 

See  espe-  in  the  Gospel. 

1^3^38^39^  §  19.  Objection  III.,  and  last.  Forgiveness  in  itself, 
viewed  in  its  bare  and  simple  notion,  is  an  act  of  pure  grace 
and  mercy;  but  justification,  proper ly  speaking,  is  an  act  of 

Deut.25.1;  justice.  Therefore,  &c.  .  .  .  The  first  part  of  the  antecedent 
•  ^^*  ^'  the  learned  man  fairly  takes  for  granted ;  the  latter  part  he 
proves  by  many  arguments,  and  shews  at  length  that  justi- 
fication is  an  act  of  justice,  and  not  of  pure  grace  and  mercy, 
from  the  actual  proper  application  of  the  word  '  to  justify/ 
which  in  every  language,  and  in  the  common  and  constant 
use  of  men,  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  justice. 

I  answer,  first,  I  graut  both  parts  of  the  antecedent,  viz. 
that  forgiveness,  considered  by  itself,  is  an  act  of  free  mercy 
and  grace,  and,  that  justification,  beyond  all  doubt,  is  an  act 
of  justice.  What  füllows  from  this  ?  This  only  legitimately ; 
viz.  that  a  man's  justification  does  not  consist  in  a  bare  and 
simple  forgiveness ;  and  I  grant  this :  especially  as  I  have 
alrcady  shewn,  that  wliere  there  is  a  bare  and  simple  for- 
giveness, there  is  there  no  place  for  justification ;  and  surely, 


that  justification  is  an  act  of  justice.  53 

this  has  never  been  denied  by  the  reformed  divines^  who  have  s  TRI  c. 
taugbt  that  a  man's  justification  consists  in  tlie  forgiveness  of '- — 


sins  :  so  that  the  learned  man  is  here  fighting  with  his  own 
shadow.     The  question  is  not,  whether  a  man's  justification 
in  the  Gospel  covenant  consists  in  a  mere  and  bare  forgive- 
ness,  (such    a   question   woiüd   iraply   a   contradiction,)   but 
"whether  a  man's  justification  in  the  Gospel  covenant  consists 
in  that  forgiveness  which  is  granted  by  tlie  same  covenant  ? 
This  question  Av^e  constantly  answer  in  the  aflii'mative,  nor 
does  the  learned  gentleman,  in  the  whole  course  of  his  long 
argument,  bring  forward   any  thing  to  the  contrary.     For, 
secondly,  the  state  and  condition  of  Gospel  forgiveness  are 
the  same  as  of  Gospel  justification.     As  far  as  Gospel  justifi- 
cation is  an  act  of  justice,  so  far  Gospel  forgiveness  is  an  act 
of  justice.     Again :  as  far  as  Gospel  justification  is  an  act  of 
grace  and  mercy,  so  far  Gospel  forgiveness  is  an  act  of  grace 
and  mercy.     As  to  the  former,  that  Gospel  justification  is  an 
act  of  justice,  this  may  be  proved  by  two  arguments  :  first, 
that  it  is  founded  in  Christ's  satisfaction ;  secondly,  that  it  is 
transacted  by  law,  and  according  to  law.     But  who  does  not 
see  that  by  the  same  arguments  it  is  as  evident  that  Gospel 
forgiveness  is  also  an  act  of  justice  ?     For,  is  it  not  Gospel 
forgiveness  founded  in  Christ's  satisfaction  just  as  much  as 
Gospel  justification  ?    Is  not  the  Gospel  forgiveness  bestowed  See  Rom. 
by  law,   and  according  to  law  ?     Assuredly  it  is ;  for  it  is  pare/wUh 
therefore  called  Gospel  forgiveness,  because  it  is  granted  by  Mat.  2(i. 
the  law  of  the  Gospel ;   and  under  certain  conditions  pre-  i.  7 .  col. 
scribed  by  the  same  law.    Hence  God,  in  granting  a  penitent  ^-  ^*- 
forgiveness  of  his  sins,  is  called  'just'  and  'faithfuL'    Again:  iJoh.  1.9. 
that  Gospel  justification  is  also,  and  that  peculiarly,  an  act 
of  gi'ace  and  mercy,  (although  the  learned  gentleman  here 
speaks  in  a  way  that  is  by  no  means  safe,  and  seems  to 
separate  every  notion  of  grace  and  mercy  from  the  idea  of 
justification — of  which  I  will  speak  more  presently,)  the  Holy 
Scriptures  bear  piain  testimony.    We  are  said  '  to  be  justified 
freely  by  His  (i.  e.  God's)  grace'  {8iKatova-6at  Swpeäv  rfj  avrov  Rom.3.21'. 
'^dpiTt).     Where  the  Apostle  uses  a  remarkable  pleonasm  to  Compare 
shew  that  the  justification  of  a  siuner  must  be  attributed  to    ^^"   ' 
the  grace  and  mercy  of  God.     Of  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
Holy  Scripturc  speaks  in  likc  manner:  "In  whom  (Christ)  Epli.  1.7. 


54  Refutation  of  absurdities  and  contradictiom 

s  T  R I  c.  we  have  redemption  througli  His  blood,  the  forgiveness  of 

'- —  sins  according  to  the  riclies  of  His  grace"  {Kara  top  ttXovtov 

T^9  X«/3iT09  avTov).  Thercfore,  let  tlie  learned  gentleman 
turn  whicli  way  he  will,  he  will  find  nothing  that  may  not  be 
as  equally  said  of  justification  as  of  forgiveness. 

§  20.  Thus,  then,  I  have  supported  my  own  judgment  on 
this  question ;  it  reraains,  that  I  refute  your  and  your  father's 
opinioTi.  For  although,  ou  the  statement  of  the  eoramon 
doctrine,  3'our  opiniou  falls  to  the  ground  of  itself,  yet  I 
thought  it  might  benefit  the  reader,  were  I  briefly  to  explain 
it  as  it  Stands,  and  take  it  to  pieces.  Your  opinion,  then,  (if 
I  understand  you  rightlj^,)  is  something  of  this  kind : — you 
hold,  that  a  man  is  first  made  righteous  by  Christ's  satis- 
faction,  and  freed,  not  ouly  from  the  punishment  ef  sin,  but 
also  the  fault  of  it,  i.  e.  from  the  'desert^  of  punishment; 
that  after  this,  all   his   sins   are   in   consequence  forgiven. 

p.  6.  Your  words,  in  the  sheets  annexed  to  the  end  of  my  book, 

are  these : — "  God  in  the  justification  of  a  sinner  acts  faith- 
fully  as  a  just  judge,  when  He  acquits  the  faithful,  whom 

Rom. 5.19.  Christ  has  made  righteous  by  His  obedience,  of  all  the  guilt 
of  his  sins.  Since  the  true  forgiveness  of  sins  inseparably 
accompanies  justification,  the  Apostle  proves  from  the  Psalms 
that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  vrorks,  because  man's 

Rom.  4.  sins  are  forgiven  without  works.  For  on  this  account  God 
~^'  does  not  impute  sin  to  a  Christian,  because  He  had  imputed  to 
Christ  the  sins  of  a  world  reconciled  to  Himself,  and  iraputes 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  the  faithful,  as  the  Apostle  says 
plaiuly,  2  Cor.  v.  19,  21."  Afterwards,  in  the  same  sheets, 
you  say,  "  to  justif}^  is  to  acquit  of  the  very  desert  of  punish- 
ment, and  make  free  from  all  blame;"    and  again,  in  the 

p.  7-  same  sheets,  you  say  :  "  He  Avho  is  accountcd  righteous  and 

innocent  on  account  of  Christ's  propitiation  and  expiation 
of  sin,  must  necessarily  be  forgiven  all  his  sins,  by  the  mere 
force  of  natural  consequence." 

§  21.  It  were  hard  to  say  in  how  many  and  how  great 
absurdities  this  opiniou  of  yours  is  involved  :  let  it  suffice  to 
mention  tliree  things  ouly. 

Firstly,  this  opinion  necessarily  determines  the  Imputation 
of  Christ's  righteousness  to  be  such  as  uo  reason  can  dcfend  : 
nay,  it  is  diametrically  opposcd  to  Scripturc  and  right  reason. 


contained  in  the  Cemurer's  opinion.  55 

All  Catliolics  confess   that  it   is   by  Christ's  righteousness  s  T  R I C. 

alone,  or  the  obedience  performed  by  Christ,  that  God  is .: 

willing  to  forgive  a  repentant  sinner  his  sins,  and  not  im- 
puting  his  guilt  treat  him  as  a  righteous  person.  by  giving 
him  a  right  to  salvation  and  life  eternal.  But  not  contented 
with  this,  you  say  that  Christ's  righteousness  is  so  imputed 
to'  US,  that  by  it  we  are  accounted  by  God  really  righteous 
ourselves,  innocent,  and  free  not  only  from  all  punishment, 
but  also  fi'om  all  fault.  God's  judgraent  is  true  according 
to  truth,  and  therefore  no  man,  who  has  once  been  entangled 
in  sin,  can  be  accounted  by  God  really  righteous,  innocent, 
and  free  from  sin,  Of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness we  will  speak  (D.  Y.)  more  at  length  presently. 

Secondly,  This  opinion  labours  under  a  manifest  contradic- 
tion;  it  holds  that  a  man  who  is  already  made  righteous, 
and  freed  from  all  fault,  is  afterwards  forgiven  his  sins  and 
pardoned.  Who  can  avoid  hitting  on  so  gross  and  palpable 
a  contradiction  ?  Surely  where  there  is  no  fault,  it  is  piain 
there  can  be  no  room  for  forgiveness.     And  so 

§  23.  Thirdly,  This  opinion  entirely  takes  away  and  over- 
turus  all  forgiveness  of  sins  in  that  economy  of  God  by  which 
He  justifies  a  man.  This  argument  is  closely  connected  Avith 
the  preceding.  If  you  acknowledge  any  forgiveness  of  sins, 
you  must  hold  that  that  forgiveness  is  granted  either  before 
justification,  or  in  the  act  of  justification,  or  after  justifica-  ■ 
tion.  But  in  accordance  with  your  opinion  you  can  agree 
to  none  of  these  three.  Before  justification  no  one,  I  suppose, 
in  his  senses  will  say  that  a  man's  sins  are  forgiven ;  that 
they  are  forgiven  in  the  act  of  justification  you  openly  deny ; 
that  they  cannot  be  forgiven  after  justification  I  have  already 
shewn;  therefore  according  to  your  opinion  all  forgiveness 
of  sins  is  entirely  done  away.  But  I  have  no  need  to  speak 
here  of  inferences,  for  although  you  talk  of  forgiveness  of 
sins  constantly,  it  is  CAident  you  do  not  mean  forgiveness  in 
its  true  sense.  Your  words  in  the  sheets  added  at  the  end 
of  my  book  are  piain :  "He  who  is  justified  from  a  chargc  p.  ö. 
has  nothing  forgiven  liim.  Forgiveness  of  sins  has  no  agree- 
ment  with  justification."  I  say  the  truth,  I  shudder  as  I 
read  this  new  and  dangerous  doctrine.  You  are  here  digging 
up   the  very  foundations  of  Gospel  doctrine,  which   every 


56  This  teaching  closely  alUed  to  Socinianism. 

s  T  R I  c.  where  proclaims,  and  ^vith  tlie  greatest  praises  exalts  and 


YII 


extols  tliat   free    gracious   benefit    of  God,  whicli  is  called 
{ä(j)ecn^  äfiapTtSv)  '  forgiveness  of  sins.'     Xow  may  the  im- 
pious  heretics  of  Socinus'  school  quote  tlie  Tvords  of  a  di^ine 
■who  glories  in  tlie  title  of  orthodoxy  in  proof  of  tlieir  detest- 
able  Position,  viz.  "  tliat  Christ's  satisfaction  being  granted, 
forgiveness  of  sins  is  not  a  free  gracious  act ;"  for  you  hold, 
that  Christas  satisfaction  being  granted,  tlie  forgiveness  of 
sins  is  not  only  not  a  free  gracious  act,  but  tliat  there  is  no 
forgiveness.     I  perceive  at  last  with  what  judgment  the  most 
learned  of  inen  said  not  long  ago,  "  It  is  a  true  and  Catholic 
doctnne  tliat  Christ  made  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  men; 
but  it  bas  been  fearfuUy  coiTupted  by  Calvin's  disciples ;  so 
much  so  that  in  this  respect  their  error  is  more  dangerous 
than  that  of  Socinus/'     If  any  one  wishes  for  an  antidote  to 
de  Satis-    this  poisonous  doctrine,  let  him  read  Grotius'  book,  (approved 
Christi^     by  all  learned  and  Catholic  men,  and  deservedly  taken  for 
cap.  6.       a  shield  against  the  blows  and  all  the  Aveapons  of  Socinus,) 
124.  where  that  great  man  shews  at  length  and  clearly,  that  for- 

giveness is  so  far  from  being  opposed  to  foregoing  satisfac- 
tion, that  on  the  contraiy  "the  sole  object  of  satisfaction 
(which  is  a  payment  of  debt  such  as  may  be  refused)  being 
admitted  is  to  make  room  for  forgiveness.^^  In  the  same 
p.  128.  chapter  he  proves  against  Socinus  "the  granting  a  free 
favour  is  not  opposed  at  all  to  any  sort  of  satisfaction ;  it  is 
not  opposed  to  that  (satisfaction)  which  is  both  freely  ad- 
mitted, whereas  it  miglit  have  been  rejected,  and  to  Avhich 
the  benefited  person  contributes  nothiug :  both  which  are 
the  case  with  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  for  us.^'  And  a  little 
p.  129.  after,  "  A  tliiiig  is  riglitly  said  to  be  pardoned  as  also  to  be 
forgiven,  even  when  a  payment  is  annexed,  but  such  a  pay- 
ment as  cannot  but  by  an  act  of  God's  will  procure  our 
deliverance.  For  even  princes,  when  they  pardon  ciiminals 
capital  crimes,  usually  appoiut  them  some  fine  as  well  as 
some  public  deprecation  of  their  fault ;  and  they  are  not  said 
the  less  on  that  account  to  forgive  the  crimcs.  How  much 
more  justly  then  will  this  word  be  used,  when  the  required 
satisfaction  does  not  proceed  from  us,  but  we  obtain  deUver- 
ance  gratuitous  as  respects  ourselves,  although  not  absolutely 
gratuitous  ?  and  Scripture  marks  this  when  it  speaks  of  our 


Testimony  of  St.  Clement  of  Rome.  57 


lö2. 


being  justified  freely,  but  adds  directly,  '  by  tbe  redemption  s  T  R  i  c. 
wliich  is  in  Christ  Jesus.' " '- — 

§  24.  To  these  words  I  will  add  by  way  of  seal  the  well-  °™"  * 
known  testimony  of  Clement  of  Rome,  an  apostolic  Father  c.  7.  p 
and  all  but  inspired,  in  bis  Epistle  to  the  Corinthiaus^  whicb 
by  all  learned  men  is  accounted  genuine.  ^Arevl^cofMeu  et? 
TO  alfia  Tov  Xpiarov,  Koi  thw^ev  o)^  ecrrc  rifiiov  tw  0ea>  alfxa 
avTOv,  o,  TL  hia  tyjv  rj/xerepav  a(OT7]piav  iK)(y6ev  Travrt  tö) 
KÖa-fKp  /xeravola'?  %«/3iy  VTrrjvejKev.  "  Let  us  gaze  stedfastly 
on  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  see  how  precious  His  blood  is  in 
God's  sight^  which,  shed  for  our  salvation,  confeiTed  the 
grace  of  repentance  on  the  whole  world.''  These  words  I 
have  ever  thought  worthy  of  being  engraved  in  letters  of 
gold,  and  by  all  who  wish  to  study  true  theology,  committed 
to  memory  for  ever ;  inasmuch  as  they  contain  the  genuine 
explanation  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  as  given  by  a  com- 
panion  of  the  Apostles.  I  have  no  time  at  present  to  shew, 
how  the  testimony  of  this  apostolic  Father  puts  an  end  in 
these  few  words  to  all  question  as  to  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ,  in  Opposition  both  to  Socinians  and  others,  who  in 
shunning  the  Charybdis  of  Socinus  have  Struck  upon  a  no 
less  dangerous  Scylla.  The  intelligent  reader  will  be  able 
to  understand  this  of  itself.  I  infer  two  things  only,  which 
bear  especially  on  our  point ;  1.  that  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ  delivers  no  one  ipso  facto,  biit  only  efFects  this,  that 
any  one  may  be  delivered  from  the  guilt  of  sin  under  the 
condition  and  law  of  repentance ;  2.  that  notwithstanding 
the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  it  must  be  accounted  the  free 
grace  and  mercy  of  God  that  Ple  allows  a  sinner  to  repent, 
or  (as  Clement  afterwards  explains  himself)  grants  us  a  place 
of  repentance,  i.  e.  that  He  is  willing  to  bloss  the  penitent 
believer  with  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins.  He  spoke  of  the 
free  grace  of  repentance  to  express  the  free  act  of  God  in 
this  work.  But  this  is  our  very  positiou,  that  the  satisfaction 
of  Christ  being  granted,  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  a  free 
gracious  act. 

And  thus  far  then  as  to  the  third  question,  whethcr  the 
idea  of  Gospcl  justification  includes  the  forgiveness  of  sins  ? 
on  the  determining  of  which  we  have  dwelt  the  longer,  as  well 
because  the  question  in  itself  is  one  of  great  momcnt,  as  also 


58  Solution  of  the  last  question  proposed. 

ST  RI C.  and  most  of  all  because  every  where  in  your  remarks  you  are 

^^^-      reproacliing  me  with  tlic  falsc  idea  I  liavo  of  Gospcl  justifica- 

tion,  and  state  it  as  my  great  mi stake,  the  fountain  and 

source  of  various  errors.     But  whicli  of  us  has  tlie  truer  idea 

of  Gospel  justification,  tlie  impartial  readcr  may  now  decide. 

§  25.  There  rcmains  the  fourth  and  last  question,  viz. 
whcthcr,  it  bcing  granted  that  forgiveness  of  sins  is  not 
necessarily  included  in  the  idea  of  Gospcl  justification,  it 
is  not  still  certain  that  the  condition  of  both  benefits,  \iz. 
Gospcl  forgiveness  and  justification,  is  exactly  the  same  ? 
This  question  I  will  solve  in  one  word.  You  allow  yoursclf 
that  forgiveness  of  sins  proceeds  from  justification  by  the 
force  of  natural  consequencc,  (as  you  call  it) .  But  whatever 
is  required  for  that  which  is  the  neeessary  consequence  of 
justification,  must  also  be  required  for  justification  itself. 
I  entreat  you,  do  you  seriously  think  that  any  thiug  is  neees- 
sary for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  which  is  not  also  neeessary 
for  justification  ?  You  yovu-self  remark  (as  we  saw  just  now) 
that  forgiveness  of  sins  necessarily  accompanies  justification  j 
and  therefore  that  the  Apostle  St.  Paiü  rightly  proved  that  a 
man  is  justified  by  fiiith  without  works,  because  a  man's  sins 

Rom.  4.     are  for^iven  without  works.    Might  I  not  then  on  the  autho- 
'  rity  of  the  Apostle  argue  thus — A  man's  sins  are  not  forgiven 

without  repentance  ;  therefore  a  man  is  not  justified  without 
repentance  ?  for  you  yoursclf  bring  the  reason  of  the  con- 
sequence in  these  words  :  "  Forgiveness  of  sins  inseparably 
accompanies  justification."  Therefore,  if  I  granted  you  that 
forgiveness  of  sins  is  not  eontained  in  the  idea  itself  of  Gospel 
justification,  (which  I  have  shewn  to  be  uttei'ly  falsc,)  it  Avould 
neither  help  your  cause  at  all,  nor  injure  mine  ;  so  that  you 
have  plainly  spent  all  your  labour  in  vain. 

STRICTURE    VIII. 

ON  I.  DISS.  ii.  8.  p.  Iß. 

I  here  press  those,  who  teach  that  faith  is  the  sole  instru- 
ment  of  justification,  with  a  dilcmma ;  in  the  elucidation  of 
the  first  part  of  which  I  ask  them,  "  IIow  can  the  works  of 
repentance  be  neeessary  to  him  who  hath  been  already  justi- 
fied by  faith  alone  ?"  You  answer,  "Shew  one  passagc,  ifyou 


Faith  not  the  sole  instrument.  59 

carij  where  the  Holy  Spirit  determines  works  of  repeutance  s TR l c. 

to  be  requisite  for  justification.       I  know  tliat  tliis  is  im '— 

possiljle ;  nay,  tlie  contrary  can  be  shewn — meanwliile  I  am 
aware,  and  allow  that  God  exacts  works  of  repentance  from 
US  on  divers  other  accounts ;  but  a  man  may  obtain  tlie 
righteousness  of  faitli,  who  is  cut  off  by  death  fi'om  tbe 
opportunity  of  bringiug  forth  fruits  of  repeutance/^ 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  VIII. 

I  have  in  tbat  place  brougbt  forward  some  piain  enough 
passages,  in  whicli  the  Holy  Spirit  determines  that  works  of 
repentance  are  of  necessity  required  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  to  which  I  might  have  easily  added  numberless  others ; 
and  that  remission  of  sins  and  justification  are  equivalent 
termSj  I  have  just  made  most  evident.  ^Mien  you  say  it  is 
possible  for  a  man  to  obtain  the  righteousness  of  faith,  who 
is  cut  off  by  death  from  an  opportunity  of  bringing  forth 
fruits  of  repentance,  what  is  this  but  egregious  sophistiy  ? 
The  works  of  repentance  are  twofold ;  either  internal,  which 
are  performcd  within,  in  a  man's  inmost  heart;  such  as 
sorrovring  for  sin,  hating  sin,  humbly  submitting  oneself  to 
God,  flying  to  God's  mercy,  loving  God  in  Christ,  and  seek- 
ing  Ilim  before  all  things,  the  purposing  a  new  life,  and  the 
like ;  or  external,  such  as  are  completed  in  external  act ;  of 
which  kind  are  restitution,  alms,  &c.  Only  the  works  of  re- 
pentance of  the  former  kind  are  absolutely  necessary  to 
obtain  the  first  justification,  while  the  latter  are  necessary 
for  its  continuation  when  obtained,  if  God  give  man  the 
opportunity  of  practising  them.  Yet  these  latter  ought  to 
be  pcrformed,  in  wish  at  least,  by  every  man  who  is  to  be 
justified,  which  wish  is  to  be  comprehended  under  the 
purpose  of  a  new  life.  All  this  I  do  not  state  in  the  passage 
to  which  you  object,  Avhere  I  was  talkiug  of  works  of  both 
kinds  promiscuously,  but  had  you  a  particle  of  candour  you 
Avould  acknowledge  that  I  have  stated  this  distiuctly  in 
other  parts  of  my  Dissertations.  At  the  cnd  of  the  second 
Dissertation  (chap.  xviii.,)  I  avowedly  admonish  the  reader  of 
what  I  would  have  thoroughly  fixcd  in  his  mind,  lest  he 
ghould  eitlicr  misunderstand   my  Dissertations,   or,  in  this 


3—5. 


60  No  righteousness  without  repentance, 

STRIC.  most  important  point,  sliotild  at  the  hazard  of  liis  salvation 
^^^^'     err  from  the  truth ;  wliere  read  these  words  of  mine  :  "  It 

§  8.  p.  209.  myg|.  ijg  understood^  that  oiily  tlie  internal  works  of  faith, 
repentance,  hope,  charity,  &c.,  are  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  first  justification ;  but  the  other  external  works,  which 
appear  in  outward  actions  or  in  the  actual  exercise  of  the 
above-uamed  virtues,  are  only  the  signs  and  fruits  of  internal 
piety,  being  subsequent  to  justification,  and  to  be  performed 

See  also     providcd  opportunity  be  given."     But  he  who  says  it  is  pos- 

li.Diss.ii.  sibie  for  a  man  to  obtain  the  righteousness  of  faith  who  is 
prevented  by  death  from  performing  these  internal  works  of 
repentance,    flatly    contradicts    our   Lord,    who    openly    de- 

Lu.  13.  nounces  eternal  and  inevitable  destructiou  against  all  who 
do  not  repent. 

STRICTURE  IX. 

ON  I.  DISS.  ii.  9.  p.  17. 

Here  I  say,  "What  they  advance  respecting  the  instrumen- 
tality  of  faith  in  the  matter  of  justification  is  a  trifling  piece 
of  sophistry,"  &c.  On  this  you  remark  in  the  margin, 
"  Without  any  vaunting,  we  think  and  say,  with  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  Sacred  Scripture,  that  a  sinner  through  mere  mercy 
in  Christ  is  justified  by  faith,  of  faith,  and  through  faith,  by 
God  who  looks  upon  the  obedience  which  Christ  has  wrought 
for  US,  and  that  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ  performs  a  special 
office  towards  our  obtaining  the  righteousness  of  God;  which 
Scripture,  so  far  from  assigning  to  good  works  expressly 
denies  to  them.  Whether  this  influence  (of  faith)  in  obtain- 
ing righteousness  according  to  God's  appointment  is  to  be 
called  instrumentality,  is  a  mere  dispute  of  words.  The 
question  is,  whether  good  works  have  the  same  rank,  and 
equal  honour  and  efficacy  with  faith,  so  that  God  justifies  us 
through  and  on  account  of  them,  just  as  through  and  on 
account  of  faith.  This  I  deny  with  the  Apostle,  who  proves 
Ins  Statement ;  while  you  afl&rm  without  proving  it.'' 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  IX. 

§  1.  They  who  assert  the  pcculiar  instrumentality  of  faith 
in  the  Avork  of  justification,  do  not  speak  with  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  the  Sacred  Scripturcs.     I  call  on  you  to  shew  a  single 


therefore  none  by  faith  only.  61 

passage,  if  you  can,  where  tlie  Holy  Spirit  says  that  faith  is  STRIC. 

'the  one'  instrument  of  justification^  whicli  mode  of  speaking — — 

alone  I  liere  object  to.  But  you  say,  Although  the  Holy 
Spirit  does  not  exactly  say  this,  yet  He  says  as  much,  since 
He  declares  every  where  that  a  man  is  justified  in,  by,  and 
througli  faitli ;  while  on  the  other  hand,  He  no  where  assigns 
justification  to  works,  but  expressly  denies  it  to  them,  and 
hence  it  is  clear  enough  that  faith  has  a  special  office  in 
obtaining  the  righteousuess  of  God;  which  is  all  that  was 
meant  by  those  who  have  said  that  faith  is  '  the  one^  instru- 
ment of  justification.  Here  I  fancied  I  saw  an  Achilles — but 
on  Coming  closer  I  discovered  it  was  only  a  ghost.  The  whole 
of  your  assumptiou,  viz.  that  justification  in  Sacred  Scripture 
is  every  where  attributed  to  faith,  no  where  to  works,  is  false. 
On  the  contrary,  I  affirm  that  justification  is  not  attributed 
to  faith  'alone/  but  to  other  virtues  also;  and  oftener  to 
other  virtues  than  to  faith. 

§  2.  In  Order  to  make  this  piain,  (and  at  the  same  time  to 
put  a  stop  for  the  future  to  this  constant  bm'den  of  yours,)  I 
wish  the  reader  to  weigh  with  me  very  carefully  the  foUowing 
observations.  Ist.  Let  him  remember  that  two  things  have 
been  already  proved;  1.  that  no  inspired  writer,  but  St.  Paul, 
has  taught  in  so  many  words,  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith 
without  M' orks ;  2.  that  not  even  St.  Paul  himself  has  taught 
in  so  many  words  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without 
works,  except  in  argument,  and  in  a  controversy,  wherein  he 
was  engaged  with  Jews  and  other  enemies  of  the  Gospel. 
2ndly.  Let  the  studious  reader  observe,  that  among  the  other 
writers  of  the  Xew  Testament,  the  justification  of  a  sinner  is 
very  rarely  spoken  of  under  the  name  or  word  'justification/ 
but  if  I  remember  right,  only  in  three  places,  Luke  xviii.  13, 14, 
Matt.  xii.  37,  and  St.  James,  chap.  ii.,  add  to  which  Acts  xiii. 
39,  where  he  is  professedly  speaking  against  those  who  mis- 
understood  St.  Paul's  doctriue.  3rdly.  It  must  be  remarked, 
that  what  St.  Paul  calls  'justification,'  by  other  sacred 
writers  is  geuerally  spoken  of  as  '  forgiveness  of  sins.'  This 
is  clear  enough  from  what  has  been  said  in  the  Answer  to 
the  Seventh  Stricture  (Sect.  8,  9,  10,  &c.),  and  will  be  abund- 
antly  clear  to  any  one  who  examines  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 
4thly.  It  must  be  remarked  that  wherever  you  find  the  justi- 


62  Justification  attribuied  to  many  virtiies. 

STRI  C.  fication  of  a  sinner  expressed  by  the  very  word  'justification' 

'— —  in  the  Scriptures,  with  the  exception  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles, 

and  that  saying  of  St.  Paul_,  Acts  xiii.  39,  it  is  attributed  not 
to  faith,  at  any  rate  not  to  faith  alone,  but  to  other  virtues 
also.  Thus  in  Luke  x^dii.  13,  14,  it  is  attributed  to  the 
humble  confession  of  a  penitent  and  supplicating  sinner : 
thus  in  ]\Iatt.  xii.  37,  it  is  attributed  to  men's  words,  \iz. 
as  marks  of  their  internal  piety  and  purity.  By  St.  James 
it  is  constantly  ascribed  not  to  faith  only,  but  to  works  pro- 
eeeding  froni  and  conjoiued  with  faith,  and  his  (St.  James's) 
testimony  ought  to  be  equivalent  to  all  the  rest,  since  he 
wrote  his  Epistle  Avith  the  design  of  answering  those  who 
abused  St.  PauFs  Epistles ;  of  which  I  have  often  reminded 
you,  so  that  I  am  surprised  at  your  confident  assertion  that 
justification  is  no  where  in  Scripture  attributed  to  works. 
5thly.  Lastly,  it  must  be  especially  remarked  that  in  those 
passages  of  Scripture  where  man's  justification  is  expressed 
by  'forgiveness  of  sins,'  (which  are  almost  Avithout  uumber 
both  in  the  Old  and  in  the  New  Testament,)  it  is  almost 
always  attributed  to  repentance,  either  directly  or  by  some 
circumlocution,  and  that  descriptive  of  repentance.  Repent- 
ance and  forgiveness  of  sins  are  a  pair,  as  every  one  knows, 
constantly  occurring  together  in  the  Scriptures.  Nay  in 
these  two  words  is  contained  the  whole  of  the  Gospel,  or 
what  God  in  the  Gospel  either  promises  to  us  or  demands 
from  US,  as  is  e\ident  from  Luke  üi.  3 ;  xxiv.  47,  and  Acts  v.  31. 
I  cannot  but  pity  your  voluntary  bhndness,  (to  retort  your 
own  words  on  yourself,)  who  will  not  see  things  which  are  so 
piain.  From  these  observations  one  natiu'ally  concludes  that 
St.  Paul  had  a  peculiar  reason  as  well  for  almost  always  calling 
man's  absolution  in  his  arguments  by  the  term  'justification,' 
while  the  other  sacred  writers  usually  speak  of  the  same  ander 
the  expression  '  forgiveness  of  sins ;'  as  also  preferring  to  use 
the  word  '  faitV  to  dcnote  the  condition  of  this  same  abso- 
lution, while  other  inspü'ed  writers  have  more  fully  expressed 
it  by  the  term  '  repentance.^  As  to  the  latter,  why  St.  Paul 
usually  expresses  the  one  condition  of  the  Gospel  by  the  Avord 
'faith,^  I  have  already  adduced  satisfactory  reasous  in  the 
Harmony,  IL  Diss.  eh.  v.  To  those  add  the  following  argu- 
ment.  St.  Paul  is  opposing  the  encmies  of  the  Gospel,  the  Jews 


Reasonsfor  St.  Paul's  mode  qf  argument.  63 

especially,  wlio,  clinging  pertinaciously  to  the  Mosaic  law,  STRIC. 
refuscd  tlieir  faith  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel.     On  these,  '- — 


therefore,  he   every  where   inculcates   faith   as   a  first  and 
necessary  work  to  be  performed,  and  accordingly  if  this  were  See  Joh. 
done  every  thing  eise  that  the  Gospel  requires,  would,  by 
God's  grace,  easily  follow.     Thus  he  says  that  '  righteousness  Rom.4.24'. 
will  be  iraputed  to  those  wlio  beheve  on  Hirn  that  raised  up 
Jesus  from  the  dead/  i.  e.  to  those  who  believe  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Gospel,  confirmed  by  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from 
the  deadj  not  that  this  belief  is  suflß.cient  of  itself  (for  the 
very  de\nls  believe  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ  is  true,  and 
tremble),  for    obtaining    righteousness,  but   because    those 
with  whom  St.  Paul  argued,  had  need  most  especially  of  this 
faith,  and,  this  faith  granted,  all  the  rest  (as  we  said)  by 
God's  grace  would  follow.     This  reason  is  closely  allied  to  Compare 
the  Observation  of  Clement  of  Alexaudria  on  the  usual  saying  ^^tss.  37. 
of  our  Saviour  to  the  Jews  whom  He  healed,  TJty  faith  hath 
saved  thee :    "  For  those  who  were  righteous  under  the  law  Strom,  ö. 
had  need  of  faith ;  wherefore,  when  our  Lord  healed  tliem  ^'     "■ 
He  said,  Thi/  faith  hath  saved  thee.     But  those  Avho  were 
righteous  in  philosophy  had  need  not  only  to  believe  in  the 
Lord,  but  to  depart  also  from  idolatry.     And  immediately  on 
the  revelation  of  the  truth  they  too  repented  of  their  former 
deeds."     Afterwards  in  the  same  book,  "  So  that  when  we  p.  794. 
hear,   Thy  faith   hath   saved  thee,  we   do   not  receive   that 
He  said  absolutely,  that  they  should  be  saved  who  beheved  in 
any  way,  unless  works  also  followed.     To  the  Jews  only  He 
said  thus,  who  were  under  the  law  and  lived  blamelessly 
therein,  who  were  only  deficient  in  faith  in  the  Lord."     As 
far  as  regards  the  first  question,  viz.  why  St.  Paul  in  his 
discussions  so  constantly  speaks  of  a  sinner's  absolution  by 
the  term  'justification,'  this  I  think  must  be  gathered  from 
the  scope  of  the  Apostle.     For  since  the  opponents  of  St.  Paul 
contended  for  some   sort  of  justification  more   properly  so 
called,  (i.  e.  as  I  suppose,  oue  which  rested  on  the  accm-ate 
observance  of  the  letter  of  the  Mosaic  law,  though  more  See  Mat. 
especially  of  the  sacrifices  and  rites  prescribed  therein,)  he  pjjjj  g' 
Avas  obliged  to  use  the  term  'justification'  in  argument,  and  ■*— ö- 
accordingly  to  repeat  the  same  several  times   on  common 
ground  with  tlicm,  and  what  hc  took  away  from  the  righte- 


64  Inconsistency  of  the  Cenmrer. 

S  T  R  r  c.  ousness  of  the  law^  under  the   sarae  name  to  attribute  to 

'— —  faith ;  otherwise  the  Avord  '  forgiveness,'  (which  all  the  other 

sacred  wiiters  prefer^)  used  for  the  acquittal  of  a  siuner, 
"would  have  shewn  his  purpose  better^  to  express  the  grace 
and  mercy  of  God  in  this  matter. 

§  4.  Your  next  Observation,  that  the  question  "Whether 
the  iufluence  of  faith  in  obtaining  righteousuess  according 
to  God's  appointment  ought  to  be  called  instrumentality/' 
is  a  mere  dispute  about  words  I  have  no  concern  with.  Let 
them  see  to  it  who  have  undertakeu  to  defend  this  iustru- 
mentality,  (who  they  are  you  Avell  know,)  and  have  tlirust  on 
others  that  mode  of  speaking  by  which  man  is  said  to  be 
justified  by  faith  alone  as  the  one  instrument  of  justification; 
for  such  men  in  the  place,  vThereon  you  inflict  this  censure, 
I  alone  am  opposing.  But  what  do  I  hear?  are  you  not 
yourself  defendiug  this  dispute  about  words?  are  you  not 
putting  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  this  form  of 
speaking?  I  could  scarcely  have  believed  you  had  so  soon 
forgotten  the  words  you  wrote  in  the  notes  of  the  page  just 
preceding  in  my  book,  in  which  you  seriously  warn  me  to 
beware  "  lest  I  make  a  mock  of  Holy  Scriptnre,  w'hich  says 
that  faith  is  the  one  instrument  which  embraces  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ,  the  one  ransom  of  the  soul."  Nay,  but  in 
the  following  page  you  again  defend  the  same  mode  of  speak- 
ing ;  your  words  are,  "  I  indeed  am  so  dull  that  I  see  no 
reason  why  faith  should  not  be  called  the  instrumental 
cause."  What  links  shall  bind  me  to  such  a  changing 
Proteus  ?  This  inconsistency  is  a  piain  mark  of  a  bad  cause, 
of  a  man  in  great  extremities,  and  quite  at  his  wit's  end.  I 
beseech  you  to  take  a  position  somewhere,  and  stand  firm, 
that  I  may  know  where  to  be  able  to  find  you.  Is  faith  the 
one  instrument,  on  our  part,  of  justification  ?  If  you  deny  it, 
I  obtain  what  I  contended  for  in  that  part  of  my  Disserta- 
tions ;  if  you  allow  it,  I  again  ask  you,  what  sort  of  instru- 
ment you  mean?  a  physical,  i.  e.  a  properly  called  instru- 
mental cause  ?  But  the  physical  efficacy  of  faith,  in  the  work 
of  justification,  I  dcstroy  by  so  piain  an  argumeut,  (in  the 
page  of  my  Disscrtatious  "svhich  your  censure  refers  to,)  that 
even  you  at  length  are  ashamed  of  so  senseless  a  fancy. 
Reflect  on  vour  own  words :   "  We  are  not  reallv  such  fools 


Whether  good  works  are  to  be  ranked  with  faith.  65 

as  to  sav  that  the  act  of  a  creatui'e  has  a  physical  efiBcacv  in  STR  iC 

IX 
producing  an  act  of  Gocl."     Do  you  merely  mean,  tlien,  tliat  '- — 

faith  is  the  one  coudition  prescribed  in  the  Göspel  covenant, 
which  is  iisually  called  a  moral  instrument  ?  You  mnst 
either  say  this  or  nothing;  for  in  this  Avork,  besides  an  in- 
strument physical  or  moral,  no  other  can  be  supposed;  so 
you  do  at  length  take  up  your  position  here.  Your  words  in 
the  notes  at  p.  17  of  my  book  are  these :  "  We  assert  that 
faith,  which  is  the  gift  of  God,  has  by  God's  appointment  a 
real  cfficacy  in  obtaining  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  so  that 
by  the  sentence  of  God  we  are  coimted  righteous,  and  ac- 
quitted  of  all  crime.  This  suffices  for  its  instrumentality." 
These  words  find  their  fellows  in  the  notes  of  p.  18 :  "  In  a 
moral  matter  the  instrument  Avhich  is  requii'ed  is  one  of  the 
same  kind  as  the  matter."  You  say  the  same  also  in  this 
rery  Stricture,  when  you  explain  the  instrumentality  of  faith 
by  "the  influence  in  obtaining  righteousness  according  to 
God^s  appointment."  You  say,  then,  that  faith  is  the  one 
moral  instrument  of  justification,  or  the  one  condition,  ne- 
cessarily  required  for  a  man's  justification,  according  to 
Dinne  institution  and  appointment,  as  set  forth  in  the  Gös- 
pel covenant.  But  that  repentauce,  or  the  turning  from  sins 
to  God,  out  of  a  true  love  of  and  afl'ection  for  God,  is  also 
a  condition,  and  a  primary  one,  necessarily  required  for  the 
absolution  of  a  sinner,  according  to  Divine  appointment  as 
set  forth  in  the  Gospel ;  this  truth,  if  I  have  not  yet  either 
in  my  Dissertations,  or  in  this  Examination  at  least,  clearly 
proved,  truly  for  the  future  I  shall  utterly  despair  of  being 
able  to  prove  any  thing. 

§  5.  "\Ve  come  at  length,  under  your  guidance,  to  the  real 
and  genuine  position  of  the  questiou.  You  close  yom*  cen- 
sure  thus  :  "  The  questiou  is  '  whether  good  works  have  the 
same  rank  and  equal  honour  and  efiicacy  with  faith,  so  that 
God  justifies  us  through  and  on  account  of  them,  just  as 
through  and  on  account  of  faith?'  This  I  deny,  with  the 
Apostle,  who  proves  bis  statement;  whüe  you  affirm  with- 
out  proving  it.  I  do  not  beheve  that  any,  or  at  least  if 
any,  very  few  of  those  whose  cause  you  have  taken  on  your- 
seLf  to  defend  at  such  length,  would  stand  by  your  explana- 
tion  of  the  question.     Usually  they  professedly  deny  that 


66  True  vieiv  of  the  efficacy  offaith,  ivorks,  t^c. 

s  T  R I  c.  the  proposition  "  -we  are  justified  bv  or  through  faith"  is  to 

IJ —  be  understood  as  tbougb  God  justified  mau  on  account  of 

faitb,  or  the  worthiness  of  tbat  \Trtue.  In  like  manner  we 
also  altogether  deny  tbat  man  is  justified  on  account  of 
works,  or  the  worthiness  of  works.  It  may,  however,  be 
Said  in  a  rery  true  sense,  tbat  a  man  is  justified  on  account 
of  faith^  or  on  account  of  works^  if  it  be  said  in  reference  to 
the  gracious  covenant  of  the  Gospel  estabhshed  by  the 
blood  of  Christ,  in  which  justification  and  salvation  are 
freely  promised  both  to  faith  and  other  good  works.  And 
thus  any  wtue  of  ours  is  rightly  said  to  have  honour  and 
efficacy  with  God,  if  we  regard  the  more  considerate  (if  I 
may  so  speak)  estimation  and  judgment  of  God  according  to 
the  same  most  gracious  covenant.  Thus  "  a  meek  and  quiet 
spirit'^  is  said  by  St.  Peter  to  be  in  "  the  sight  of  God  of  great 
1  Pet.  3.4.  price/^  {ivcoTTiov  Tov  Oeov  TroXureX?;?) .  I  have  no  doubt  that 
you  mean  tliis;  but  if  your  words  may  be  thus  explained, 
you  have  not  given  the  true  state  of  the  question.  For  the 
question  is  not,  whether  faith  or  love  is  valued  most  highly 
by  God,  or  which  has  the  greatest  influence  in  the  matter  of 
justification  ?  (although  that  question  may  be  easily  solved, 
as  we  shall  see  presently,)  but  the  question  is,  Whether 
faith  alone  is  sufficient  for  a  man's  justification  ?  or  whether 
repentance  also  and  a  tui'niug  from  sins  to  God,  proceeding 
from  the  true  love  of  God,  is  not  required  for  a  man^s  justi- 
fication ?  He  who  attributes  the  principal  part  in  this  matter 
to  the  Single  i-irtue,  faith,  is  without  doubt  grossly  self-deceived 
by  bis  judgment.  Yet  no  sober-minded  peace-loving  man 
would  think  he  need  therefore  take  much  pains  to  oppose  him 
or  pull  the  saw  of  controversy  with  him,  pro^dded  he  acknow- 
ledge  the  entire  necessity  of  repentance  to  a  man's  justification. 
If  he  but  agree  on  this  point,  he  is  at  liberty  to  differ  as  to  all 
other  blessings  in  which  tliere  is  no  risk  of  bis  own,  or  others' 
salvation.  One  of  our  own  divines  has  beautifully  illustrated 
this  by  the  following  similc.  "  Suppose,''  says  he,  "  a  goöd 
many  physicians,  summoned  to  consult  on  restoring  a  sick 
man  to  health,  should  at  length  all  agree  that  three  medi- 
cincs  were  indispensably  nccessary  for  the  restoration  of  bis 
health ;  this  ought  to  be  enough  for  the  sick  man,  although 
the  physicians  totally  diffcrcd  as  to  the  pcculiar  and  specific 


Love  the  first  and  most  excellent  of  virtues.  67 

efficacy   of  tliese   medicines,  and   each   mau  had   his   own  S  T  R  i  c. 

■      •  •  TIC 

oiHuion :  even  so  exactly^  when  it  is  allowed  tliat  faitli,  hope. 


and  cliarity  are  so  absolutely  necessary  to  a  man's  justifica- 
tion,  and  eternal  salvation^  that  witliout  any  one  of  them  he 
must  altogether  perisli;  but  he  who  has  these  thi'ee,  while 
he  has  them,  is  not  in  hazard  of  his  eternal  salvation :  this 
is  sufficient/'  &c. 

§  6.  However,  since  you  so  wish  it,  let  us  discuss  the  ques- 
tion  as  you  have  put  it,  (very  unwisely  and  without  consider- 
ation  for  your  friends).  Certainly,  whatever  virtue  of  ours  is 
of  greatest  priee  and  honour  with  God,  to  it  {if  to  any  virtue 
of  ours)  our  justification  must  be  chiefly  attributed ;  since  we 
cannot  have  a  surer  mark  or  plainer  sign  of  any  Adrtue  of 
ours  being  most  valued  by  God,  than  this,  that  it  has  seemed 
good  to  His  great  Goodness  to  confer  on  that  virtue  the 
greatest  benefit,  viz.  justification.  Tlierefore  you  may  bring 
the  question  at  length  to  this,  Which  virtue  is  in  greatest 
estimation  and  honour  with  God,  faith,  or  love  which  pro- 
duces  all  other  good  works?  Hear  the  Apostle  St.  Paul  on  iCor.i.3.2. 
this :  "  Though  I  have  all  faith  ....  and  have  not  charity, 
I  am  nothing /^  and  in  the  last  verse  of  the  same  chapter, 
"  and  now  abideth  faith,  hope,  charity,  these  three,  but 
the  greatest  of  these  is  charity."  Vain  therefore  is  your 
remark  at  page  21  of  my  book :  "  We  contend  not  for  the 
superiority  of  faith,  which  we  allow  to  be  inferior  to  charity ; 
we  speak  only  of  the  use  and  efficacy  of  faith  in  order  to 
justification."  For,  Ist,  you  contradict  yourself ;  you  just 
now  Said  that  no  good  work  had  equal  honour  and  efficacy 
with  God  as  faith ;  now  you  allow  that  faith  is  inferior  to 
charity.  Again,  you  said  just  now  that  the  question  is, 
Whether  good  works  have  equal  honour  and  efficacy  with 
faith,  so  that  God  justifies  us  on  account  of  them,  just  as  on 
account  of  faith.  Now,  on  the  contrary,  you  say  that  you 
are  not  arguing  for  the  superiority  of  faith.  2ndly,  It  is  veiy 
absurd,  and  carries  with  it  the  same  contradiction,  to  deny 
faith  to  be  the  chiefest  virtue,  and  yet  allow  it  a  pecuhar  use 
and  efficacy  in  obtaining  justification.  Certainly  that  virtue 
is  fairly  accounted  (as  we  said  just  now)  to  be  the  most 
excellent  which  has  a  peculiar  use  and  efficacy  in  obtaining 
God's  most  excellent  benefit,  viz.  justification.     And  what, 

f2 


68  Tendency  in  reformed  divines  to  Lnitheranism. 

s  T  R  T  c.  tlien^  is  tlie  excellence  which  you  concede  to  love,  if  you 

; —  take  a\ray  from  it  all  tise  and  efficacy  in  order  to  justifica- 

tion  ?  Lastlv,  yon  flatly  contradict  the  Apostle  St.  Paul. 
He  teaches  plainly  enougli  that  faith  by  itself  and  without 
love  avails  not  with  God;  but  you  say,  tbat  faith  of  itself 
has  all  power  with  God,  i.  e.  has  a  peculiar  efficacy  in  ob- 
taining  that  benefit  of  God,  Tvbich  comprises  every  thing 
eise.  See  our  observations  in  the  examination  of  your  Second 
Strictui'e.  But  I  am  now,  and  (I  sliould  tbink)  the  sober 
reader  is  tired  of  these  subtilties. 

STRICTURE  X. 

ON  I.  DISS.  iii.  3.  p.  21. 

I  had  Said  that  the  'royal  law/  'the  law  of  Christ  the 
king/  was  no  other  than  the  moral  law  itself«,  according  as 
Christ  Himself  set  it  forth,  perfected  it,  and  imposed  it  on 
His  disciples  to  be  necessarih-  observed  as  His  law.  To 
these  words  I  subjoin  the  following.  "  This  must  be  parti- 
cularly  observed,  that  we  fall  not  into  the  same  error  as 
Luther,  and  most  of  our  own  divines  after  his  time :  who  in 
disputing  with  the  Roman  Catholics  concerning  justification, 
and  carried  away  in  the  heat  of  controversy,  have  iutroduced 
the  following  error  into  the  Reformed  Churches,  greatly  to 
their  disadvantage.  They  taught  that  the  Gospel  consisted 
of  promises  only ;  that  Christ  gave  to  the  world  no  law,  but 
only  explained  the  law  already  given ;  and  freed  it  from  the 
faulty  coraments  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees ;  that  the  only 
use  of  the  moral  law  at  present,  is  to  bring  men  to  the  faith 
of  Christ,  or  at  least,  that  there  may  be  some  determinate 
laws  of  conduct,  recommended  indeed  to  us  by  Christ,  and 
which  we  are  bound  out  of  gratitude  to  obey ;  but  not  im- 
posed upon  US  on  pain  of  damnation,  nor  as  a  condition  of 
the  New  Covenant  necessarily  to  be  observed  to  salvation. 
From  these  principles  uuguardedly  laid  down  by  them,  and 
eagerly  adopted  by  the  generality  of  theologians,  arose  by 
strict  and  regulär  deduction,  the  execrable  tenets  of  the 
Antinomians,  Libertines,  and  Familists ;  which  those  good 
men  by  no  means  expected."  You  remark,  "  You  are  fasten - 
ing  a  mere  calumny  on  our  divines  :  for  where  do  Whittaker, 


This  proved  to  be  but  too  true.  69 

Perkins,  Prideaux,  Abbot,  Davenant,  White,  &c.,  teach.  that  s  T  R  l  C 

the  Gospel  consists  of  mere  absolute  promises,  that  Christ : — 

our  only  lawgiver  gave  no  law :  where  do  they  preach  this 
medley  of  vain  doctrine  ?  Surely  for  an  eminent  man  and 
one  above  the  generality  of  theologians,  you  speak  very 
unguardedly." 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  X. 

§1.1  have  not  here  fastened  a  calumny  on  any  one,  nor 
have  I  spoken  unguardedly,  but  advisedly ;  but  you  have 
totally  misuuderstood  my  words.  By  '  our  di\ines'  I  by  no 
means  meant  the  divines  of  oiu'  own  or  the  Anglican  Church, 
but  more  generally  the  divines  on  oiu'  side,  i.  e.  Protestants 
as  distinguished  from  Roman  Catholics,  who  were  opposed^  as 
I  afterwards  say  exphcitly,  by  our  divines  with  an  excessive 
zeal.  And  here  I  have  not  used  bad  Latin  to  express  my- 
self  j  for  Cicero  speaks  of  'our'  philosophers,  [nostrates  phi- 
losophos,)  for  philosophers  of  our  school,  and  of '  our  words/ 
{nostratia  verba,)  for  words  which  are  used  by  those  of  our 
profession.  This  is  remarked  by  Laurentius  Yalla,  Elegant, 
ii.  3,  in  these  words:  " Nostras,  Vestras,  and  Cujas  not  only 
mean  one's  country  and  nation,  but  also  party,  and,  as  it 
were,  school :  as,  Vestrates  philosophi  non  sunt  ita  populäres  et 
favorabiles  ut  nostrates,  qid  ab  Epicuri  schola  prodierunt,  and 
ciijates  philosophi  vos  estis  ?  Stoicine  ?  an  Academici  7  an 
Peripatetici?  an  nostrates  Epicurei?  Cicer.  Putaresne  un- 
quam  accidere  posse,  ut  mihi  verba  deessent,  non  solum  illa 
vestratia  oratoria,  sed  hac  etiam  levia  nostratia  ?"  "Would, 
however,  that  it  were  but  an  idle  tale  that  many  of  our  re- 
formed  divines,  who  have  written  against  Roman  Catholics 
on  the  question  of  justification,  have  in  their  writings  handed 
down  to  US  that  medley  of  absurd  doctrines  (as  you  call  them, 
whereas  you  ought  ratlier  to  have  called  them  most  perni- 
cious) .  Alas  !  too  many  of  their  doctrines,  stiU  more  fearful 
(if  possible)  than  these,  have  long  since  been  exposed  to  all 
the  Christian  world  by  om-  common  adversaries  the  Roman 
Catholics,  so  that  it  would  be  to  little  purpose  to  cover  the 
sore.  Surely  piety  bids  us,  zeal  for  God's  glory  demands  of 
US,  to  join  the  Roman  Catholics  in  openly  aud  frcely  con- 


70       Teaching  qf  English  divines  on  the  whole  Catholic. 

s  T  R I  c.  demning  such  dogmas,  as  often  as  there  is  opportunity, 
^'  altliougli  they  spring  of  our  own  party :  both  that  tliey  (tlie 
Roman  Catholics)  may  not  seem  to  liave  good  reason  in  lay- 
ing  a  Charge^  as  is  tlieir  way,  against  tlie  wliole  reformed 
religion,  wliicli  is  in  reality  an  error  only  of  individual 
teacliers ;  and  more  especially  that  our  candidates  for  the 
sacred  ministry  may  not  to  their  own  great  hazard  and  that 
of  the  flock  hereafter  to  be  intrusted  to  them,  incautiously 
embrace  so  pestilent  a  divinity^  which  is  concealed  every  where 
hke  a  snake  in  the  grass,  in  certain  books,  which  obtain  too 
much  in  our  schools.  I  am  not  conscious  of  haviug  stirred 
up  this  dunghill  with  any  other  motive. 

§  2.  As  far  as  regards  the  divines  of  the  English  Church, 
they  would  not  be  really  such  if  they  defended  this  medley 
of  dogmas :  since  our  seventh  article,  in  the  latter  part, 
avowedly  it  would  seem,  condemns  these  doctrines.  Besides, 
our  divines  always  have  been  for  the  most  part  so  well  versed 
in  the  writings  of  the  old  and  Catholic  doctors  (as  being 
nursed  in  a  Church  which  after  the  sacred  Scriptures 
reveres  most  highly  all  that  is  left  to  us  of  the  Fathers)  that 
they  could  not  but  be  disgusted  at  doctrines  so  uncatholic  (if  I 
may  so  speak) .  In  other  places  too,  foreign  divines,  who  hare 
handed  down  those  dangerous  doctrines  in  their  writings, 
have  generally  erred  grievously  against  the  confessions  of 
their  own  Churches,  which  on  this  point  are  almost  all  sound 
and  orthodox. 

§  3.  But  listen  !  what  if  I  shew  plainly  that  you  yourself 
in  these  notes  have  taught  doctrines  from  which  all  this 
medley  of  vain  doctrine  may  be  deduced  by  ^necessary 
inference  ?  Certainly  this  is  no  difficult  task ;  let  us  see. — 
I  am  speaking  throughout  the  whole  of  the  chapter,  of  the 
moral  law  given  by  Christ,  tempered  by  the  grace  of  the 
Gospel,  and  accompanied  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Let  the  reader  now  hear  what  you  commend  to  me,  asterisked 
as  most  Avorthy  to  be  observed  and  rcmarkcd  concerning 
this  law,  in  the  Stricture  just  preceding.  "  Mark^well,"  you 
say,  "  that  the  moral  law  is  a  law  of  works :  but  remcraber 
that  boasting  is  not  excludcd  by  the  law  of  works,  but  by  the 
Rom.  3.  law  of  faith ;  and  on  this  account  we  are  justified  by  faith 
27,  28.       without  works,  that  boasting  may  be  excludcd."     It  cannot 


Not  so  that  ofthe  Censurer.  71 

easily  be  said  liow  füll  of  absurdities  this  Stricture  is :  but  STRIC. 

I  wiU  mention  only  what  bears  on  the  point.     If  the  moral ~ — 

law,  as  far  as  it  is  cousidered  by  us  in  this  chapter,  be  in 
truth  sucb  a  law  of  works  as  is  meant  by  the  Apostle  in  the 
passage  you  quoted,  and  from  which  boasting  is  not  excluded, 
it  follows  necessarily  that  no  Chi'istian,  no  believer  is  under 
the  Obligation  of  the  moral  law,  as  far  as  we  see ;  since  no 
believer  has  any  thing  to  do  -«"ith  the  law  of  works,  which 
affords  a  handle  for  boasting.  But  this  conclusion  embraees 
that  whole  medley  of  vain  doctrine. 

Moreover,  also,  those  dogmas  follow  from  your  doctrine  of 
imputed  righteousness  as  also  from  this,  viz.  that  you  ex- 
pressly  deny  that  the  moral  law  is  put  before  us  by  Christ  as 
the  nde  of  our  justification,  which  we  shall  clearly  prove  in 
the  examination  of  the  Strictures  immediately  foUowiug. 

STRICTURE  XI. 

OX  THE  SAME  CHAPTER  AND  SECTION,  p.  21. 

I  say,  that  "it  must  be  ever  observed,  as  an  undeniable 
truth.  that  Christ,  in  His  sermon,  not  only  explained  the  SeeMat.5. 
moral  law,  but  also  laid  it  down  as  His  own,  and  reqiiii'ed  its 
observance,  assisted  by  the  grace  of  the  Gospel,  fi-om  all 
Christians,  as  a  condition  of  His  covenant,  indispensably 
necessary."  Upon  this  (after  other  things  which  we  have 
examined  above)  you  remark  :  "  No  one  denies  that  there  is 
a  twofold  righteousness  necessary  for  a  Christian ;  the  one  of 
Christ,  imputed  to  the  faithful ;  the  other  performed  by  him- 
self :  the  former  is  obtained  by  faith;  the  latter  is  exercised  Mat.  5.16. 
and  shewn  by  works.^^ 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XI. 

§  1.  Eveiy  one  sees  that  this  Stricture,  if  you  consider  the 
passage  it  refers  to,  is  wholly  irrelevant.  But  as  you  are 
always  putting  forwards  this  distinction  between  two  riglitc- 
ousnesses,  as  a  Gorgon's  head,  against  me,  and  generally  iise 
it  to  elude  the  force  of  almost  all  my  arguments,  I  determined 
here,  once  for  all,  (especially  as  amid  so  confused  a  mass  as 
that  of  your  Strictures  I  could  not  find  a  more  suitable  place 


72  Ofimpiited  and  inherent  righteousness. 

S  T  R  IC.  for  doiug  so),  to  speak  more  at  length  of  this  distinction,  and 
■ — '-^ —  to  shew  that  you  both  hold  an  untrue  impnted  rigliteousness, 
and  entirely  take  auay  all  inherent  righteousness. 

§  2.  We  niust  first  treat  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
impnted  to  us,  and  first  of  the  phrase  in  Tvhich  Christ's 
righteousness  is  said  to  be  iraputed  to  us.  1.  It  is  certain 
that  that  phrase  no  where  occurs  in  Scriptiu'e.  2.  It  is 
equally  piain  that  in  most,  and  those  the  most  notable  Con- 
fessions  of  the  refonned  Churches,  it  is  altogether  omitted. 
Of  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  you  vrill  not  find 
a  syllable  either  in  our  own  Confession,  or  that  of  Augsburg, 
Strasburg,  "Wirtembui'g,  Bohemia,  Flanders,  &c.  ]S'o  one, 
therefore,  who  lives  in  one  or  other  of  these  Churches,  is 
bound  by  his  subscription  to  embrace  a  phrase  of  this  sort ; 
but  it  is  open  to  all  such  to  enquire  how  far  that  phrase 
agi'ees  or  disagrees  with  Scriptiu'e  and  right  reason.  3.  It 
must  be  observed,  that  that  phrase  ill  agrees  with  the  well- 
knoTvn  words  of  Scripture,  in  which  ^faitli'  is  said  to  be 
Rom,  4. 3,  impnted  to  man  for  righteousness.  Those  words  can  be 
23  öl  '  taken  in  no  other  sense  than  this,  ^-iz.  that  God  in  the  Gospel 
8i'  dyoTTTjy  counts  oui'  faitli  (viz.  which  is  'perfected  by  love,'  as  St.  Paul 
fj.4vT)v.  explains  himself)  for  our  righteousness,  and  determines  it  to 
be  rewarded.  Therefore,  not  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  but 
our  faith,  is  imputed  to  us  for  righteousness.  Wherefore  ? 
for  the  worthiness  of  the  thing  itself  ?  God  forbid :  but  on 
account  of  the  meritorious  satisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ  alone, 
by  which  He  obtained  of  God,  that  under  this  condition  M-e 
might  be  made  partakers  of  righteousness  and  salvation. 
Therefore,  according  to  the  Scriptui'es,  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  not  properly  that  (N.  B.)  which  is  imputed,  but 
that  on  account  of  which  our  faith  is  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness. 4.  Lastly,  it  must  be  especially  remarked,  (which  a 
man  of  great  learning  has  long  since  observed),  that  the 
phrase  in  which  Christ's  righteousness  is  said  to  be  imputed 
to  US,  if  it  be  taken  rigidly,  cannot  agree  with  that  which 
expresscs  the  proper  and  genuine  doctrine  of  the  reformed 
Churches,  in  which  righteousness  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  us 
on  account  of  the  merit  and  obedience  of  Christ.  For  if  we 
■will  havc  both  to  be  truc  to  the  letter,  we  must  say  that 
*  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us  on  account  of 


Catholic  doctrine  qf  the  former.  73 

the  righteousness  of  Christ/  which  expression  bears  witli  it  STRic. 

a  manifest  waiit  of  exactness.    But  enough  of  the  expression  : : — 

we  will  now  examine  the  thing  itself. 

§  3.  The  Catholic  doctrine  is,  that  faith,  repentance,  hope, 
love,  and  all  other  virtues  and  good  works  of  ours,  by  no 
means  of  themselves  or  by  their  own  desert  avail  to  any  one's 
being  justified,  i.  e.  so  that  he  is  acquitted  of  his  sins  before 
committed,  is  held  by  God  to  be  righteous,  and  is  pleasing 
to  and  accepted  by  Hirn  to  salvation  and  life  eternal;  but 
that  this  is  alone  and  entirely  owing  to  the  meritorious  satis- 
faction  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  which  alone  the  gracious  covenant 
(called  the  Gospel)  Avas  obtained  and  ratified,  in  accordance 
with  which  we  are  made  partakers,  under  those  most  favour- 
able  conditions,  of  justification  and  salvation.  So  our  Church, 
Article  XI. ;  "  We  are  accounted  righteous  before  God  only 
for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  not 
for  our  own  works  and  deservings/'  &c.  So  all  the  Confes- 
sions  before  mentioned.  Nor  is  any  thing  eise  meant  by  the 
Confessions  (which  are  very  few)  in  which  the  phrase  "  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us"  is  found  in  so 
many  words.  Hear  the  words  cf  the  Gallican  Confession, 
Article  XVIII.  "We  believe  that  all  our  righteousness 
consists  in  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  which  is,  as  David  bears 
witness,  our  only  happiness.  And  therefore  all  other  methods 
by  which  raen  think  that  they  can  be  justified  before  God, 
we  utterly  reject :  and  throwing  away  all  opinions  of  our 
virtues  and  deservings,  we  entirely  rest  in  the  obedience 
of  Jesus  Christ  alone;  Avhich  indeed  is  imputed  to  us  as 
well  that  all  our  sins  may  be  covered,  as  also  that  we  may 
obtain  favour  before  God  :"  where  they  srj  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  so  far  imputed  to  us,  that  on  its  account  we 
obtain  forgiveness  of  our  sins  and  are  accepted  by  God  unto 
salvation.  And  whosocA^er  will  avow  that  by  the  imputation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  he  means  this  only,  has  my 
leave  to  use  this  way  of  speaking  frcely  himself,  as  long  as  he 
does  not  thrust  it  on  other  people. 

§  4.  But  it  is  evident  that  by  the  expression  in  which  you 
say  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us,  you 
mean  soraething  very  different.  You  hold  that  the  righte- 
ousness of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us  so  that  it  'really'  becomes 


74  The  Censurefs  teaching  Antinomian. 

S  T  R I  c.  oiirs,  and  we  ai'e  accounted  by  God  to  have  performed  it  in 

-^^' Christ ;  Tvlience  it  foUows  tliat  We  may  be  said  to  be  perfectly 

rigliteous  by  that  rigbteousness^  i.  e.  properly  free  not  only 
from  all  punisbment,  but  even  from  all  fault  of  sin.  That 
this  is  your  genuine  opinion  I  have  snfficiently  she^rn  from 
your  own  words  quoted  in  the  examination  of  Stricture  YII. 
§  20,  23.  Moreover  in  otlier  places  besides  you  speak  to  the 
same  effect.  Thus  in  a  snfficiently  lengthy  Strictui-e,  annexed 
to  the  end  of  my  first  Dissertation,  you  say  that  "  God  has 
conferred  the  obedience  of  Christ  on  the  faithful,  that  being 
partakers  of  this,  and  being  enriched  with  the  riches  of  their 
Surety,  they  might  be  justified."  In  like  manner  in  the  notes 
at  p.  16-1  of  my  book  you  write  thus : — "  The  righteous- 
ness  of  Christ,  which  we  obtain  by  His  satisfaction  conferred 
by  God  upon  us  and  imputed  to  ns,  and  accepted  as  though 
it  were  om-  fulfilment  of  the  law,  is  communicated  to  us,  so 

2Cor.5.2l.  that  we  are  'the  righteousness  of  God  in  Christ;'  and  there- 
fore  this  righteousness  is  no  less  truly  said  to  be  in  us  than 
holiness  itself  is  said  to  be  in  us.  But  there  are  diflferent  ways 

inest  of  things  being  in  us ;  quality  is  in  us  in  one  way,  relation 
in  another."  A  doctriae  could  not  be  stated  perhaps  more 
harmful  or  more  dangerous.  Truly  you  here  lay  the  very 
foundations  of  the  most  pestüent  heresy  of  Antinomianism : 
this  is  that  source  of  error  from  which  the  extreme  Libertines 
derive  their  fearful  doctrines  by  a  necessary  consequence. 
Read  the  writings  of  those  wlio  in  the  late  anarchy  of  our 
Chiu'ch  (never  to  be  thought  of  without  tears)  openly 
defended  Antinomianism :  especially  the  sermons  of  Tobias 
Crisp,  styled  a  D.D.  to  the  disgrace  of  that  sacred  title.  It 
shames  me  to  teil  my  foreign  readers  how  many  deductions, 
loathsome  to  Christian  ears,  this  Ciisp  draws  from  vom* 
assertion,  and  that  with  so  piain  an  inference,  that  I  confess 
I  cannot  rcfute  his  writings  on  your  hypothesis  j  what  you 
may  be  able  to  do,  I  kuow  not.  But  leaAing  these  mon- 
strosities,  it  is  not  difficult  to  prove  that  the  Imputation  of 
the  nghteousness  of  Christ  which  you  maintain,  plucks  up 
by  necessary  consequence  the  very  foundations  of  the  Gospel, 
and  overturns  the  whole  of  God's  economy  as  revealed  in  the 
New  Testament. 

§  5.  First,  this  imputation  cannot  stand  with  the  forgive- 


Contradidions  in  his  view  of  imjmtation.  75 

ness  of  sins  on  God's  part.  This  I  liave  shewn  fullv  (in  the  s  T  R  l  c. 
course  of  discussing  another  question)  in  the  examination  of  — '—^ — 
Strictm-e  YII.  §  22,  23.  NeverthelesSj  perliaps  it  -will  be 
worth  while  to  recollect  what  we  said  tliere,  and  adapt  it 
specially  to  tlie  present  question.  If  you  acknowledge  any 
forgiveness  of  sins,  you  must  hold  that  that  forgiveness  is 
granted  either  before  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  or  in  the  act  of  imputation,  or  after  it :  but  neither 
of  these  can  be  held  consistently  Avith  your  opinion.  That 
before  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  the  sins 
of  man  are  forgiven,  no  one  in  his  senses  would  affirm ;  since 
all  orthodox  teachers  agree  that  sins  are  not  forgiven  except 
for  the  righteousness  and  meritorious  satisfaction  of  Jesus 
Christ.  That  sins  are  not  forgiven  in  the  act  of  imputation, 
as  you  hold  it,  is  also  piain :  since  the  imputation  which  you 
hold  is  wholly  incompatible  with  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 
This  is  clear  as  day,  that  to  him  Avho  is  endued  with 
completely  perfect  and  absolute  righteousness,  and  is  ac- 
counted  accordingly  faultless  before  God,  nothiug  is  forgiven 
by  this  act  of  God.  Lastly,  that  a  man's  sins  are  forgiven 
after  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  cannot  be 
affirmed  without  piain  contradiction.  For  he  who  is  ac- 
counted  perfectly  righteous  and  faultless  by  God,  neither 
Stands  in  need  of  forgiveness  of  sins,  nor  is  he  capable  of 
being  forgiven :  since  all  forgiveness  presupposes  fault. 
Therefore  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
which  you  maintain,  takes  away  entirely  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  (Avhich  is  the  chief  part  of  the  Gospel,)  and  so  must 
accordingly  of  course  be  rejected  by  all  pious  men. 

§  6.  Secondly,  that  imputation  is  wliolly  incompatible  with 
the  necessary  requisition  of  repentauce  on  our  part.  This 
foUows  from  the  former.  The  Imputation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  which  you  hold,  by  the  very  fact  of  its  taking 
away  forgiveness,  renders  the  command  also  of  repentauce 
wholly  nugatory ;  since  there  is  such  a  counection  betwcen 
repentauce  and  forgiveness  of  sins,  that  if  one  is  taken  away 
the  other  is  taken  away  also.  Besides,  what  need  has  he  of 
repentauce  of  sins,  who  is  akeady  by  God 's  sentence  ac- 
counted  righteous  and  wholly  free  from  sin  ?  AVhat  need 
has  he  of  that  imperfect  righteousness,  wlio  by  a  faith  of 


7&  Fearful  consequences  of  this  teaching. 

s  T  R  T  c.  some  sortj  and  before  all  true  repentance,  lias  abeady  ob- 
■^^-  tained  tbe  rigbteousiiess  of  tbe  law,  i.  e.  tbe  most  perfect  and 
absolute  '  rigbteousness  ?'  Hence,  tbat  prodigy  of  dhines, 
Dr.  Crisp,  wbom  I  mentioned  just  now,  bas  not  blusbed, 
has  not  feared  openly  and  avowedly  to  assert,  (consistently 
enougb  witb  bis  own,  would  tbat  I  could  say  not  witb  your 
principles,)  tbat  no  repentance  is  reqmred  from  a  man  to 
obtain  forgiveness  of  bis  sins;  (monstrous  to  tbink  of,  and 
fraugbt  witb  wbat  wrong  to  tbe  satisfaction  of  Cbrist !)  tbat 
tbe  repentance  commended  in  tbe  Gospel  is  notbing  eise  tban 
a  sort  of  generous  and  spontaneous  grief,  by  wbicb  a  man 
wbo  is  elect  is  greatly  grieved  tbat  be  bas  offended  a  God  so 
infiuitely  good,  Wbo  bas  now  fixed  all  bis  sins  upon  Cbrist ; 
na}^,  tbat  a  man  may  not,  in  tbe  petition  of  tbe  Lord^s  prayer 
"  Forgive  us  our  trespasses,"  bare  tbis  meaning,  tbat  be  may 
obtain  forgiveness  of  sins ;  (for  tbat  tbis  would  not  be  pray- 
ing  by  faitb,  nay,  tbat  sucb  prayer  would  be  abomiuation  to 
God ;)  but  bave  only  in  bis  mind  tbe  sense  and  knowledge  of 
bis  acquittal  now  sealed  and  obtained  tbrougb  Cbrist's  deatb. 
Of  all  tbese  paradoxes,  (at  tbe  bearing  of  wbicb  tbe  most  boly 
doctors  of  tbe  ancient  Cburcb,  were  tbey  in  tbe  flesb  again, 
would  be  borror-stricken,  and  exclaim,  as  of  old  one  of  tbem, 
"  O  God !  to  wbat  times  bast  Tbou  reserved  us  tbat  we 
sbould  endure  tbis  T')  of  all  tbese,  I  say,  you  lay  tbe  founda- 
tion,  in  asserting  tbat  Cbi'ist,  in  tbe  person  of  tbe  elect,  bas 
satisfied  God's  justice ;  tbat  as  our  Sponsor,  He  bas  paid  all 
our  debts;  in  a  word,  tbat  tbe  rigbteousness  of  Cbrist  is 
^really^  ours,  and  before  any  repentance  of  ours.  If  you 
allege  tbat  I  bave  undeservedly  and  invidiously  loaded  your 
opinion  witb  tbese  di'eadful  consequences,  I  ask  of  jou  but 
one  tbing,  intelligibly  explain  to  me  bow  repentance,  accord- 
ing  to  your  supposition,  is  really  necessary  to  tbe  obtaining 
forgiveness  of  sins :  if  you  do  tbis,  I  will  coufess  myself 
guilty;  I  will  tbrow  myself  at  your  feet,  and  earncstly  ask 
pardon  of  you. 

§  7.  Tbirdly,  tbat  Imputation  cntirely  takes  away  all  ne- 
cessity  even  of  faitb  to  obtain  justification;  and  tbat  being 
grantcd,  it  follows  necessarily  tbat  a  man's  justification  is 
prior  to  bis  faitb,  wbicb  assertion  is  tbe  very  dregs  of  Anti- 
nomianism.     I  know  you  will  bc  disgusted  at  tbe  iufercnce. 


Overthrows  the  necessity  offaith.  77 

but  I  also  know  ttat  you  cannot  escape  it  if  you  will  be  con-  s  T  R  l  c. 
sistent.  The  State  of  the  case  is  this :  It  is  absurd  to  hold  ^^- 
that  the  righteousness  of  Chi-ist  is  made  really  oui's  by  faith ; 
for  if  it  is  really  ourSj  it  must  be  ours  before  we  believe; 
faith  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  this.  They  who  teach  that 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  really  ours^  must  hold  with  the 
AntinomianSj  that  we  ourselves,  in  the  judgment  and  estima- 
tion  of  God,  have  performed  most  perfect  righteousness  in 
Christj  and  have  no  less  truly  satisfied  Di^dne  Justice,  tlian  if 
we  had  done  it  in  our  own  persons ;  nor  can  that  righteous- 
ness in  any  other  way  become  really  ours.  Hence  it  neces- 
sarily  follows,  that  assuming  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  all 
those  to  whom  that  satisfaction  appertains,  ipso  facto,  (before 
any  faith  of  theirs,)  are  freed  from  the  guilt  of  sins  and  made 
righteous.  I  therefore  ask  of  you,  whether  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  is  our  own  on  this  account,  \\z.  that  in  the  judg- 
ment and  estimation  of  God,  we  ourselves  have  performed 
that  righteousness  in  Christ?  If  you  affirm  this,  then  it 
foUows  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  was  really  ours 
before  we  believed,  viz.  immediately  after  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  was  consummated;  if  you  decide  otherwise,  then  it 
is  piain  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  cannot  afterward 
really  become  ours.  The  "fruit  and  effect  of  the  saving 
righteousness  and  satisfaction  of  Christ  can  indeed  depend 
on  our  faith,  (and  so  does  really  depend,)  so  that  we  do  not 
attain  it  before  we  embrace  Christ  with  a  true  and  li^dng 
faith  :  but  that  the  very  righteousness  of  Clu'ist  can  be  made 
really  oui's  by  faith,  which  was  not  ours  before  we  believed, 
is  impossible.  This  was  clearly  enough  seen  by  the  more 
learned  of  the  foreign  divines  who  taught  that  Imputation 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  which  you  defend,  and  there- 
fore, that  they  might  be  consistent,  they  openly  and  dis- 
tinctly  asserted  that  the  Imputation  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  was  altogether  previous  to  our  faith.  Thus  Piscator,  in  Resp.ad 
"  Men  are  really  reconciled  to  God  before  they  believe.''  So  p^J^f  "jf^, 
Bernhard,  "  This  forgiveness  of  sins  or  justification  in  the  p.  102, 
mind  of  God  precedes  our  faith,  (which  is  our  union  with  Textor. 
Christ).     Wherefore  we  say  that  the  faitliiul  elect  believe  P''*?'^*-.^ 

/.  i-,1     •        1  1-  •         '^^  Justif. 

without  doubt,  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  has  been  im-  Thes.  v. 
puted  to  them  by  God  the  Father  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  ^^-  P-  ^^^- 


78     As  also  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  Christ' s  propitiation, 

s  T  R I  c.  i.  e.  that  God  tte  Father  had  forgiven  them  all  tlieii*  sins 

-^^' before  they  believed."     Lastly,  thus  Smoutius  in  bis  "  Pater 

p.  5.  noster,"  wbicb  be  dedicated  to  bis  national  synod ;  "  "We 

defend  tlie  doctrine  of  eternal  election  and  forgiveness  of 
sins  against  tbose  wbo  contradiet  it,  and  ^bo  bold  tbat  onr 
sins  are  then  at  lengtb  forgiven  and  covered^  wben  we  are 
bebevers  and  in  our  due  time  are  justified  by  faitb;  and 
that  tbe  niore,  because  onr  sins  must  be  covered  and  for- 
in Scrip-  given  before  Tve  can  bebeve."  He  also  says,  "  Forgiveness 
serdonT"  ^^^  non-impntation  of  sins  precede  and  efFect  tbe  knowledge 
p.  46.  of  God,  faitb,  conversion,  regeneration,  and  renewal  of  beart, 
■wbile  we  are  yet  of  the  world,  lie  in  our  sins,  and  profane 
the  holy  nanie  of  God."  Is  not  this  doctrine  migbtily  evan- 
gelical?  The  same,  however,  not  long  ago,  was  (shame  to 
•write  it)  edited  and  defend  ed  by  John  MaccoA'ius,  professor 
of  di^•inity  in  the  University  of  Franeker ;  and  a  fevr  yeai's 
before  a  learned  man  in  Flanders  seriously  complained  that 
this  most  pestilent  doctrine  had  spread  much  in  the  reformed 
Chiu'ches  of  those  parts. 

§  8.  Fourthly  and  lastly,  that  imputation  wholly  overtums 
the  Catholic  doctrine  of  universal  propitiation  made  by 
Christas  death  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world.  For  if  Christ 
performed  satisfaction  in  tbe  person  of  those  for  whom  He 
died,  and  they  are  therefore  accounted  really  righteous  and 
free  from  sin  by  God,  it  follows  necessarily  that  that  satisfac- 
tion never  had  reference  to  tbe  reprobate,  as  they  are  called : 
and  so  you  will  observe  that  they  wbo  defend  this  imputation 
of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  all  consistently  deny  that  that 
satisfaction  was  made  and  offered  for  the  whole  human  race. 
But  the  restriction  and  limitation  of  tbe  satisfaction  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  certain  particular  persons,  not  only  opposes  innu- 
merable  testimonies  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  those  of  the 
plainest  import,  (for  for  no  article  of  our  faith  can  clearer 
passages  be  alleged  tlian  those  wliich  are  adduced  for  the 
universal  propitiation  of  our  Saviour,)  but  also  tbe  unani- 
mous  consent  of  tbe  old  Catholic  doctors,  as  well  as,  lastly, 
the  constant  and  eveiy  wherc  self-consistent  doctrine  of  our 
Church.  "VVbat  need  of  words  ?  If  Christ  died  not  for  all, 
vain  is  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  vain  also  is  faitb,  wliich 
is  enjoined  in  the  Gospel  on  all  to  whom  that  Gospel  is 


which  is  universal  in  its  extent.  79 

announced.     The  office  of  preacliing  the  Gospel  was  com-  STRic. 
mitted  hj  Christ  to  the  Apostles  in  these  words^  "  Go  ye  — '—^ — 


and  preach  the  Gospel  to  eveiy  creature  -j"  and  such  is  the 
force,  and  such  the  extent  of  their  command^  that  if  one 
preacher  could  go  OAcr  the  whole  woiid^  and  meet  all  and 
each  mortalj  he  might  ofFer  Christ  to  each_,  and  under  the 
condition  of  faith  announce  and  promise  salvation  to  be 
obtained  through  Christ.  For  the  serious  calling  of  a  man 
to  believe  presnpposes  an  object  prepared  whereon  he  may 
believe.  For  if  he  for  whom  Christ  died  not  were  called  to 
the  faith  in  Christ,  faith  wonld  be  demanded  for  a  false 
object,  nay,  no  object  at  all  as  far  as  regards  the  man  called. 
It  would  be  just  the  same  as  if  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel 
should  call  some  devil  clothed  in  a  human  form  and  mingling 
among  men  to  faith  in  Christ,  and  promise  him,  if  he  be- 
lieved,  eternal  life.  Such  a  calling  would  be  an  error  on  the 
part  of  the  caller,  and  empty  on  the  part  of  the  called,  be- 
cause  he  is  called  to  believe  in  Christ,  to  whom  Christ's 
merits  are  not  by  God's  appointnient  applicable :  and  salva- 
tion is  conditionally  promised  to  one,  to  whom,  even  sup- 
posing  that  he  believed,  yet  salvation  is  denied  from  want  of 
a  sacrifice  and  coveuant  pertaining  to  him.  Moreover  if 
Chi'ist  died  not  for  all,  then  all  would  not  be  bound,  as  soon 
as  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  was  made  known  to  them 
conceming  Christ  our  Redeemer  undergoing  deatli  for  the 
sins  of  men,  on  that  account,  to  gratitude  and  the  service  of 
Christ.  For  we  cannot  with  any  reason  say  that  they  are 
bound  to  be  gi'ateful  or  perform  sernces  on  account  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  who  are  in  every  way  utterly  shvit  out  from 
that  benefit.  Nor  to  any  persons  after  the  mystery  of  the 
death  of  Christ  has  been  made  known  to  them,  can  that  text 
be  truly  applied,  "Ye  are  bought  with  a  price  :  therefore  iCor.6.20. 
glorify  God  in  your  body  and  in  your  spirit :"  nor  "  He  died  2Cor.5.l5. 
for  all,  that  they  who  live  should  not  henceforth  live  unto 
themselves,  but  unto  Him  who  died  for  them,  and  rose  again." 
For  unless  it  be  meant  that  Christ  died  for  all,  the  founda- 
tion  on  which  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel  build  exhortations 
of  tliis  kind  will  always  be  unccrtain  and  very  often  false. 
Always  unccrtain,  because  men  cannot  know  who  are  the 
elect :  veiy  often  false,  as  often  forsooth  as  it  is  applied  to 


80  This  heresy  condemned  by  the  Council  of  Arles. 

s  T  R I  c.  tliose  wlio  are  not  elect,  wlio  upon  tbis  title  of  redemption 
— - — : —  would  not  be  bound  to  Uve  to  Cbrist,  unless  it  be  presup- 


posed  that  Cbrist  has  truly  redeemed  tbem.  Lastly,  Christ 
Plimself  could  not  by  right  of  His  deatb  (wbicb  the  Apostle 
Rom.  14.9.  expressly  says  He  can)  assert  supreme  dominion  over  all  and 
eacli^  if  He  did  not  really  die  for  all  and  each.  Here  I  have 
almost  nsed  tbe  words  of  one  of  our  most  learncd  writers; 
would  tliat  be  liad  been  able  to  make  the  rest  of  bis 
scbeme  to  agrce  Avitli  these  words !  And  so  tbe  sum  of 
all  is — take  away  tbe  universal  propitiation  wbicb  was  made 
by  Cbrist's  deatb,  and  you  at  onee  put  an  end  to  all  preacb- 
ing  of  tbe  Gospel ;  tbe  universal  Obligation  of  men  to  wlioni 
tbe  Gospel  is  made  known,  to  believe  in  Christ,  and  to 
perform  grateful  serviee  to  Uim,  as  tbeir  Redeemer,  is  taken 
away;  lastly,  tbe  universal  dominion  and  empire  of  Cbrist 
over  all  men  by  rigbt  of  redemption  is  taken  away,  i.  e.  tbe 
very  foundations  of  tbe  wbole  Gospel  are  torn  up.  Whence 
tbe  opinion  of  tbose  wbo  deny  tbat  tbe  propitiation  of  Cbrist 
bas  reference  to  all  men  was  deservedly  condemned  of  old, 
as  plainly  beretical,  in  tbe  Predestinarians,  as  tbe};'  are  called, 
by  tbe  Council  of  Arles :  "  Anatbema  to  bim  wbo  sball  say 
tbat  Christ  died  not  for  all,  and  would  not  all  men  to  be 
saved.^'  And  tbis  Anatbema  of  tbe  Council  of  Arles  was 
reiterated  by  tbe  Syuod  of  Lyons  wbicb  was  beld  soon  after. 
Again  I  say  tbat  tbe  universal  satisfaction  of  Cbrist  is  not 
consistent  witb  tbe  imputation  wbicb  you  defend :  since  by 
sucb  satisfaction  we  obtain  only  a  rigbt  (wbicb  is  common  to 
all)  to  forgiveness  of  sins  and  eternal  life,  under  a  certain 
condition :  and  if  tbis  condition  be  performed  by  any  one  of 
US  by  God's  grace,  not  tbe  satisfaction  itself,  but  tbe  rigbt 
acquired  by  tbat  satisfaction  is  really  ours.  Tbis  is  well  ex- 
pressed by  a  very  learned  mau  in  tbcse  words :  "  By  tbe 
deatb  and  actions  of  Christ  a  rigbt  was  obtained  for  all  wbo 
are  wilHng  to  use  it.  He  wbo  wisbes,  by  Christ's  preventing 
and  accompanying  aid,  makes  tbat  rigbt  bis  own,  &c.  Tliey 
wbo  say  tbat  satisfaction  is  iniputed,  go  bcyond  the  words  of 
Scripture ;  speak  obscvu'ely  and  improperly ;  and  iuvolve  the 
subject  in  difficulty  ratbcr  tlian  explain  it.  What  then  is  tbe 
fact  ?  we  appropriatc  to  ourselvcs  wbat  was  obtained  for  all ; 
we  drink  from  a  fouutain  tbat  strcams  fortb  to  all ;  we  fulfil 


Texts  of  Holy  Scripture  fahely  adduced.  81 

the  condition  on  "which  a  royal  indulgeiice  ia  offered ;"  or  to  s  T  R  l  c. 
use  the  M^ords  a  second  time  of  the  apostohe  Clement,  "  The  ^r '    ' 


blood  of  Christ  shed  for  our  salvation  was  so  precious  to  " 
God,  that  on  that  account  He  granted  the  grace  of  repent- 
ance  to  the  whole  world,"  i.  e.  Christ,  by  His  obedience  even 
unto  death,  obtained  from  God  that  every  man  on  the  con- 
dition of  repentance  should  obtain  pardon  of  sins,  and  so 
life  and  etemal  salvation ;  and  on  the  peribrmance  of  that 
condition,  not  the  obedience  itself  of  Christ,  but  forgiveness 
and  salvation  obtained  and  acquired  through  Christ's  obedi- 
ence, is  given  us  by  God.  Here  all  is  easy  and  piain  be- 
cause  true. 

§  9.  From  aU  these  considerations,  you  yonrself  wül,  I 
hope,  see  under  how  many  and  how  great  absurdities  your 
doctrine  conceming  the  imputarion  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  labours.  Nevertheless,  that  all  scruple  (if  that  be 
possible)  may  be  removed  from  yonr  mind,  in  the  next  place 
I  will  answer  at  some  length  the  chief  texts  of  Scriptare 
which  you  or  others  have  adduced  in  behalf  of  this  Imputa- 
tion of  Christas  righteousness.  The  first  passage  is,  "For  as  Rom^.ip. 
by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,  sobythe 
obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  I  answer : 
Of  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  not  one 
syUable  is  here  said,  mnch  less  of  the  imputation  that  you 
defend.  All  that  is  here  said  is,  that  we  are  made  righteous 
by  the  obedience  of  One,  riz.  Christ,  i.  e.  we  are  justified  on 
accoimt  of  the  merit  of  Christ's  obedience ;  and  he  who  shall 
deny  this  let  him  be  for  me  anathema.  You  will  reply, 
perhaps,  that  we  are  here  said  to  be  made  righteous  through 
the  obedience  of  Christ,  just  as  we  are  made  sinners  by 
Adam^s  disobedience,  but  by  Adam^s  disobedience  we  are 
made  sinners  in  reality,  therefore  &c.  I  answer,  Ist, — The 
greater  part  of  the  most  leamed  Interpreters  say  that  there 
is  a  metonymy  in  the  first  part  of  this  verse.  'Afiap-wXol 
Karecrrddricrav,  i,  e.  (they  say)  were  treated  just  as  if  they  had 
sinned  in  act,  viz.  because  they  were  condemned  to  death ; 
so  the  Word  *  sinner'  is  used  1  Kings  i.  21.  So  also  in  the 
same  sense  we  find  the  word  'sin'  attributed  to  Christ,  2  Cor. 
V.  21,  as  we  shall  see  presently.  Admitting  this  interpreta- 
tion,  it   is  clear  that   there  is  no  force  in  this  argument. 


82  Bellarmine's  Interpretation  the  true  one. 

S  T  R I C.  But,  2ndly,  it  were  vain  to  press  strictly  tlie  comparisons 
— - — '- —  and  autitheses  of  Holy  Scripture  in  every  point,  as  I  could 


shew  easily  by  hundreds  of  examples.  It  is  sufficient,  if  on 
the  whole,  the  comparison  or  Opposition  be  fit  and  suitable, 
as  in  this  case ;  As  by  the  disobedience  of  Adam  we  are 
bound  over  to  death^  so  by  the  obedience  of  Christ  we  are 
freed  from  death  and  restored  to  the  hope  of  immortal  life. 
But  if  you  will  liave  the  Apostle's  comparison  made  out 
exactly,  see  what  answer  can  be  made  to  the  argument  of 
De  Justif.  Bellarmine  ou  this  passage — "  We  hold/'  says  he^  "  that  to 
ivp.i03.3°l  ^^  justified  by  Christ,,  is  not  to  be  held  or  pronounced  right- 
eous^  but  truly  to  become  and  be  made  righteous^  through  the 
attainment  of  inherent  righteousness,  and  that  a  righteous- 
ness  not  imperfecta  but  absolute  and  perfect.  For  that  'to  jus- 
tify'  is  in  this  passage  '  to  make  righteous'  not  ^  to  pronounce 
righteous^  is  clear^  as  well  from  the  words  "  many  shall  be 
made  righteous/'  where  the  Apostle  himself  declares  what  'the 
being  justified'  is^  and  says  that  it  is  'to  be  made  righteous/ 
for  'to  bemade  righteous'  and  '  to  become  righteous'  are  the 
same ;  as  also  from  Adam  being  put  in  antithesis  to  Christ. 
For  the  Apostle  writes  that  we  are  in  such  wise  made  righteous 
by  the  obedience  of  Christ,  as  we  have  been  made  unrighteous 
by  the  disobedience  of  Adam ;  for  it  is  evident  that  by  the 
disobedience  of  Adam  we  have  been  made  unrighteous  by  an 
unrighteousness  truly  and  really  inherent  in  us,  not  by  the 
unrighteousness  of  Adam  imputed  to  us,"  Again,  how  will 
you  answer  the  Huberians,  who,  from  this  comparison 
between  the  disobedience  of  Adam  and  the  obedience  of 
Christ,  infer  that  all  meu  together  by  the  obedience  of 
Christ  are  actually  placed  in  state  of  salvation ;  just  as  all 
men  by  the  disobedience  of  Adam  are  really  and  actually 
placed  in  a  state  of  death?  How  will  you  refute  Antino- 
mians,  who  from  the  same  comparison  gather  that  all  to  whom 
the  obedience  of  Christ  relates,  i.  e.  the  elect,  by  the  same 
obedience  are  imraediately,  absolutely,  without  anj^  act  of 
their  own,  either  of  faith,  or  repentance,  made  righteous : 
just  as  all  who  are  involved  in  the  disobedience  of  Adam,  are 
consigned  to  death  absolutely  and  without  any  reference  to 
their  own  peculiar  sins  ?  Lastly,  if  that  comparison  is  to  be 
pared  to  the  quick,  what  end  will  there  be  of  this  sort  of 


Redemption  offered  to  all.  83 

subtilties  ?  The  truth  is,  in  tliis  passage  neither  the  way  s  T  R  l  c. 
nor  the  manner^  whereby  we  are  justified  by  Christas  obe-  — ~~ — 
dience,  is  by  any  means  distinctly  explained,  (as  nothing  is 
here  said  of  the  condition  of  justification  requii'ed  on  our 
part) ;  but  from  numberless  other  passages  it  is  clear  enough, 
that  the  way  in  which  a  man  is  justified  by  the  obedience  of 
Christ,  is  this,  viz.  that  if  he  embrace  Christ  by  a  living 
faith,  he  receives  remission  of  sins  and  a  right  to  eternal  life 
by  His  blood.  See  what  we  have  said  in  the  examination  of 
the  Seventh  Stricture,  §  10,  11,  12,  &c.  The  same  thing  is 
also  plainly  inferred  from  the  ninth  verse  of  this  chapter 
compared  with  verses  16,  20,  21.  3rdly,  and  lastly,  that  the 
Apostle  in  this  chapter  never  thonght  of  that  imputation  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  which  you  defend,  is  most  clear 
from  hence,  that  he  speaks  of  the  communication  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  as  that  which  is  universal,  and  ex- 
tended  to  all  mankind,  upon  whom  condemnation  and  death 
had  come  through  the  first  Adam.  The  Apostle's  words 
immediately  preceding  the  controverted  passage  are  piain, 
ver.  18  :  "  Therefore  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  judginent  came 
upon  all  men  to  condemnation ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness 
of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life.^^  Whence  it  is  clear  that  the  Apostle  in  this  passage 
meant  nothing  eise  than  that  an  universal  covenant  had 
been  obtained  and  ratified  by  the  obedience  and  death  of 
Christ  the  second  Adam,  in  accordance  with  which,  and 
under  the  conditions  therein  prescribed,  all  the  sons  of  the 
first  Adam  might  be  freed  from  death  and  condemnation. 

§  10.  Your  second  aud  principal  passage  is,  "  Ple  hath  2Cor.5.2i. 
made  Him  to  be  sin  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might 
be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Him."  I  answer : 
Neither  here  is  it  said  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is 
imputed  to  us,  much  less  so  imputed  as  to  be  really  ours. 
If  you  think  that  what  is  implied  by  that  phrase  is  here 
taught,  you  are  much  mistaken.  That  this  may  be  made 
evident,  the  passage  must  briefly  be  explained.  Ist,  it  is 
certain  (which  is  observed  by  nearly  all  the  most  learned  in- 
terpreters)  that  in  botli  parts  of  this  antithesis  the  abstract 
is  put  for  the  concrete,  as  is  the  way  of  the  Jews,  ^sin^  for 
'  sinner,'  '  righteousness'  for  '  righteous.'     2nd]y,  it  is  equallj'^ 

G  2 


84  Explanation  0/2  Cor.  v.  21. 

s  T  R I  c.  certain,  that  in  the  form  er  portiou  of  tlie  sentence,  tlie  par- 

— ^—^ —  ticle  '  as/  or  some  worcl  like  it,  must  be  miderstood ;  '  He  made 

Hiiii  to  be  a  sinner/  i.  e.  as  a  sinner ;  i.  e.  God  the  Father 

willed  Christ  to  be  treated  as  a  sinner,  and  one  most  Avicked, 

by  undergoing  the  most  ignomiuious  death  of  the  cross.     So 

speak  Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  CEcnmenius,  &c.     "Without 

doubt  some  elHpse  or  other  figure  must  be  understood  in  the 

passage;  for  it  would  be  a  fearful  blasphemy  to   say  that 

Chi'ist,  although  most  innocent,  and  fi-ee  from  all  sin,  nay, 

most  holy  too^  was  really  held  in  the  judgment  and  estima- 

tion  of  His  Father,  a  sinner  and  vricked.     Thus  else^rhere 

Kardpa.      Christ  is  Said  to  have  been  made  a  ^curse  for  us;^  where 

■  again  is  a  twofold  figure,  for  Kardpa  is  pnt  for  KaTdpaTo<;, 

and  the  particle   w?  is  understood.     So  that  the  sense  is, 

Christ  is  treated  as  though  He  were  accm'sed  before  God. 

Nothing  worse  than  this  could  befal  the  most  wieked  man 

in  this  life,  but  execrable  indeed  were  he  who  wonld  teach 

aei  w\6-    that   the   '  Ever  Blessed '    Son    of   God   was    really   in    His 

777TOS.        Father's  sight  'accui'sed.'     3rdlr,  it  must  be   speciallv  ob- 

KorapuTOS.  .  ' 

served  that  the  "righteousness  of  God"  does  not  here  mean 
the  ' righteousness  of  Christ.'  For  the  word  'God'  in  this 
passage,  as  in  many  other,  is  used  peculiarly  of  God  the 
Father,  as  distiuct  from  Christ ;  and  so  since  as  we  have 
Said,  "  righteousness"  is  here  put  for  '  righteous,'  the  words 
"  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Hirn," 
i.  e.  in  Christ,  must  be  explained  in  this  way, — that  we 
might  be  made  righteous  before  God,  or  that  we  might  be 
accounted  righteous  of  God  for  Christ's  sake.  This  being 
taken  for  granted,  it  is  piain  that  the  passage  must  be  thus 
explained ;  As  Chi'ist  on  account  of  us  was  made  sin,  or  a 
sinner,  so  we  for  Christ's  sake  are  made  the  righteousness  of 
God,  or  righteous  before  God;  i.  e.  as  for  our  sins  Christ 
has  been  treated  by  God  as  a  sinner,  although  really  He  was 
free  from  sin ;  so  we,  on  account  of  His  righteousness  and 
satisfaction,  are  treated  by  God  as  righteous,  although  really 
we  are  not  perfectly  righteous ;  to  wit,  our  sins  are  forgiven 
US  on  our  repentance,  on  account  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  and 
the  right  to  eternal  life  is  granted  to  us ;  so  that  this  passage 
of  the  Apostle  well  confirms  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
satisfaction  of  Christ,  while  it  cannot  agree  anv  wav  with 


Scriptural  meaning  of  "  reconciliation."  85 

your  cloctrine  of  imputation.     Lastly,  I  ^vi\\  acld  this  above  S  T  R I C. 

all,  that  your  exposition  of  this  clause  is  altogether  opposed z^ 

to  tlie  preceding  words  of  tlie  Apostle,  ver.  19.  For  there  2Cor.-5.i9. 
St.  Paul  speaks  clearly  of  tlie  reconciliation  made  by  tlie 
deatli  of  Christ,  and  of  tlie  non-imputation  of  sin,  which  is 
given  to  the  world.  without  restriction;  whence  followed 
the  universal  covenant  of  grace  and  salvation,  wliich  he 
calls  the  word  of  reconciliation ;  this  same  he  expressly  rhv  \6yov 
says  had  been  committed.  or  entrusted  to  him,  and  the  "^J  If^"^«^- 
rest  of  the  Apostles,  to  be  announced  to  the  world.  The 
words  are,  "To  wit,  that  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling 
the  world  unto  Himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  to 
tliem ;  and  hath  committed  unto  us  the  word  of  reconcilia- 
tion." The  interpretation  of  those  wlio  here  explain  the 
world  by  the  'elect'  (not  to  speak  more  harshly)  is  bold  and 
rash,  and  wholly  without  precedent,  neither  can  it  be  con- 
firraed  by  any  passage  of  Scripture  where  it  is  CAädent  that 
the  word  is  taken  in  that  sense.  The  source  of  the  error  is 
this  :  that  it  seems  stränge  to  good  men  that  it  should  be  said 
of  the  whole  Avorld,  that  God  lias  reconciled  it  with  Himself, 
still  more  that  He  has  not  imputed  sins  to  it.  But  there  is  but 
little  weight  of  reason  in  this ;  for  the  reconciliation  made  by 
Christ's  deatli  is  expressly  attributed  by  this  Apostle  in  other  viz.  Rom. 
places,  even  to  the  wicked^  and  men  as  yet  strangers  to  a ' ' 
State  of  grace  and  salvation.  For  *^this  reconciliation'  means 
nothing  eise,  than  that  Divine  Justice  has  been  so  far  satis- 
fied  by  the  deatli  of  Christ,  that  God  is  now  not  only  in- 
clined  and  ready,  but,  by  a  gracious  covenant  ratified  with 
men,  has  bound  Himself  to  grant  forgiveness  to  all,  and 
be  at  peace  vnih  all  who,  by  faith  and  sincere  repentance, 
will  return  to  Hirn;  henceforth  on  God's  part  nothing 
hinders  but  that  men  may  be  in  very  deed  reconciled  with 
Hirn.  For  that  actual  reconciliation  is  not  meant  in  this 
passage  is  clear  from  hcnce,  that  the  Apostle  is  expressly 
speaking  of  such  a  reconciliation  of  the  world  by  the  deatli 
of  Christ,  as  prcccded  the  very  announcement  of  the  Gospel 
or  of  the  word  of  reconciliation,  wliicli  was  made  to  the  world 
by  the  Apostles,  much  more  the  faith  and  conversion  of  the 
world  to  God.  But  that  no  one  previous  to  faith  and  con- 
version is  actually  reconciled  to  God  or  justificd,  is  dcclared 


86  Nation  of  imputed  holiness  refuted. 

STRIC.  by  Scriptiire  in  so  manV;  and  tliose  so  piain  passages,  that  it 

'- —  is  eitlier  intolerable  ignorance  er  obstinacy  to  question  it. 

The  same  is  to  be  said  of  the  other  expression.  For  wben 
God  is  said  '  not  to  bave  imputed  sins  to  the  worki'  in 
Christ,  the  meauing  is,  that  God,  although  He  might  have 
justly  willed  not  to  spare  a  whole  world  involved  in  sins,  (as 
He  willed  not  to  spare  the  great  multitude  of  offending 
angels,)  but  have  punished  by  eternal  death  and  utterly 
destroyed  the  whole  human  race,  (this  is  to  impute  sins  in 
the  most  proper  sense  and  in  the  highest  degree,)  yet  He  was 
willing  to  spare  them,  and  even,  propitiated  by  the  death  of 
Christ,  to  enter  into  a  covenant  of  grace  with  men,  whereby 
forgiA'euess  of  sins  and  eternal  salvation  were  promised  to 
those  who  believed  and  truly  repented ;  so  that  the  saying  of 
the  Apostle  that  God,  on  account  of  Christ 's  propitiation, 
has  not  imputed  sins  to  the  world,  is  exactly  the  same  as  that 
of  Clement,  the  intimate  companion  of  the  Apostle,  (whose 
words  will  charm,  eA'en  though  ten  times  repeated,)  "  that 
God,  for  the  sake  of  Christas  blood-shedding,  ojffered  the 
'  grace  of  repentance'  to  the  whole  world/' 
iCor.1.30.  §  11.  The  third  passage  is  :  "  But  of  Hirn  are  ye  in  Christ 
Jesus,  wdio  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom  and  righteousness 
and  sanctification  and  redemption."  I  answer :  I  cannot 
sufficiently  admire  your  and  some  others'  acuteness,  that  you 
can  deduce  from  this  passage  your  imputed  righteousness. 
Your  argument  is  of  this  sort : — Christ  is  made  to  us  right- 
eousness by  God ;  therefore  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  so 
imputed  to  us  that  it  really  becomes  ours,  and  through  it  we 
are  accounted  perfectly  righteous  by  God.  Following  this 
method  of  arguing,  let  us  go  on  to  the  next  words  of  the 
Apostle :  "  Christ  is  made  to  us  sanctification  by  God ;" 
therefore  the  holiness  of  Christ  is  so  imputed  to  us  that  it 
becomes  really  ours,  and  through  it  we  ourselves  ai'e  deno- 
minated  holy.  But  whoever  heard,  whoever  dreamed,  of  im- 
puted holiness,  save  an  Antinomian  or  Libertine?  Let  us 
go  back  to  the  preceding  words :  "  Christ  is  made  to  us  of 
God  wisdom  /'  therefore  the  wisdom  of  Christ  is  so  im- 
puted to  US  that  it  really  becomes  ours,  and  through  it  we 
ourselves  are  denominated  wise.  "VVhat  trifliug !  !  The 
sense   of  the   passage   is   piain   enough;    in   the  Apostle's 


Inherent  righteousness  clenied  hy  the  Censurer.  87 

words  there  is  a  constant  metonymy  of  tlie  effect  put  for  the  S  T  R.  I C. 
cause :  "  Christ  is  wisclom  to  us/'  i.  e.  through  Christ  alone '- — 


we  are  imbuecl  with  true  and  heavenly  wisdom :  "  Christ  is 
our  righteousness/'  i.  e.  we  are  jnstified  through  Christ  alone: 
"  Christ  is  our  sanctification/'  i.  e.  through  Christ  alone  we 
ai'e  gifted  with  a  richer  measure  of  the  Iloly  Spirit :  "  Christ 
is  our  redemption/'  i.  e.  through  Christ  alone  we  are  one 
time  to  be  freed  from  death,  which  is  called  our  redemption.  Roin.8.23. 
Surely,  you  cannot  here  well  interpret  redemption  of  the    ^^'  ' 
satisfaction  of  Christ ;  since  that  lias  been  plainly  implied  in 
the  preceding  words  of  the  Apostle,  "  Christ  is  made  unto 
US  righteousness."    So  Theophylact  has  rightly  explained  the 
passage^  '' '  Christ  is  to  us  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctifica- 
tion, and  redemption/  i.  e.  He  has  made  us  wise  and  right- 
eous,  and  lioly  and  free  -j"  and  again,  "  First  He  made  us  wise, 
delivering  us  from  error,  and  teaching  us  the  knowledge  of 
God ;  then  righteous,  by  giving  us  a  remission  of  our  sins ; 
afterwards  He  sanctified  us  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  thus 
bestowed  on  us  a  complete  deliverance  from  all  evils."     On 
the  passage  in  the  Philippians  iii,  8,  9, 10, 1  have  said  enough.  Harm. 
From  all  I  have  said  on  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  -^^°l ^jj  ' 
of  Christ,  it  is  at  length,  I  think,  sufl&ciently  clear,  that  you  6.  p.  145. 
hold  an  imputed  righteousness  which  is  not  true. 

§  12.  It  remains  to  shew  briefly  the  second  point ;  \dz.  that 
you  take  away  altogether  all  inherent  righteousness.  This  also 
is  sufficiently  evident  from  your  doctrine  of  imputed  righteous- 
ness :  for  you  hold  such  an  imputation  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  as  is  altogether  incompatible  with  the  necessity  of 
inherent  righteousness,  as  has  been  abeady  shewn  above. 
This,  however,  can  be  proved  in  other  ways.  You  say,  that 
you  acknowledge  inherent  righteousness;  but,  though  you 
affirmed  it  a  hundred  times,  I  could  hardly  believe  it.  If 
you  had  said  that  you  acknowledged  a  hohness  or  good 
quality  inherent  in  all  justified  persons,  I  had  not  objected  : 
but  you  cannot  acknowledge  inherent  righteousness  in  them, 
if  you  would  speak  consistently.  To  explain  myself — Inherent 
righteousness  can  be  called  om*  righteousness  in  no  other 
way  than  that  we  are  made  righteous  through  it,  i.  e. 
that  it  is  a  condition  of  our  justification  required  in  the 
Gospel  covenant.     But  you  deny  this,  and  consequently  take 


88        Inherent  righteousness  a  condition  of  justification. 

STRIC.  away  all  inherent  righteousness.  All  righteousness  has  re- 
— ^— : —  ference  to  some  law^  Standard,  or  rule,  according  to  which  it 
is  exacted  :  and  he  is  righteous,  who  performs  what  the  law 
requires,  by  the  rule  of  which  he  is  'to  he  judged  :  one  thing 
then  remains  to  be  examined,  by  Avhat  law  we  are  accounted 
righteous  according  to  this  inherent  righteousness.  Surely, 
by  the  law  of  grace  or  the  Gospel.  The  law  of  grace  says : 
''  He  who  believes  and  repents,"  i.  e.  is  grieved  from  the 
heart  at  his  sins,  detests  and  leaves  them,  and  turns  to  God 
in  Christ  from  a  true  love  and  sincere  purpose  of  obedience, 
shall  receive  pardou  of  sin,  and  a  right  to  eternal  life  and 
the  blood  of  Christ :  and  he  who  afterwards,  if  he  hve,  shall 
bring  fortli  worthy  fruits  of  repentance,  and  shall  grow  in 
righteousness  and  holiness,  shall  retain  the  grace  of  justifi- 
cation which  he  obtained,  as  long  as  he  remains  such;  and 
accordingly,  if  he  die  in  this  state,  shall  be  saved  eternally. 
The  Performance  of  this  condition  is  our  righteousness  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  the  Gospel,  which  requires  this ;  and  by 
the  Performance  of  this  condition,  we  are  through  the  same 
law  determined  to  be  righteous,  i.  e.  we  are  not  found 
guilty  of  ha\dng  failed  to  perform  the  condition  requh-ed  in 
that  law,  Surely,  he  is  blind  who  does  not  see  that  this  our 
righteousness  is  subordinate  (so  to  speak)  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  and  entirely  depends  on  it.  For  the  law  or 
covenant  of  the  Gospel  is  founded  and  cstablished  in  the 
blood  of  Christ.  Christ  obtained  from  the  Father,  that  we 
should  be  judged  by  so  gracious  a  coTcnant ;  and  His  most 
perfect  righteousness  and  obedience  was  effectual  with  God 
to  the  end  that  our  righteousness,  thougli  maimed  and  im- 
perfect,  should  be  accepted  imto  salvation,  as  if  it  were  in 
truth  completely  and  in  all  points  perfect.  These  State- 
ments are  piain  and  easy  to  be  understoodj  but  your  con- 
tinually  repeated  observations,  both  on  imputed  and  inherent 
righteousness,  are  so  intricate  and  perplcxed,  that  the  reader 
who  refk^cts  upon  them  will  fancy  he  has  fallen  into  some 
labp'inth,  from  which  he  will  not  easily  be  able  to  extricate 
himself. 


The  law  of  Christ  not  twofold  but  one.  89 


STRICTURE  XII. 

ON  I.  DISS.  üi.  §  4.  p.  21. 

After  haviug  treated  at  leugth  of  the  law  of  Christ,  by  tlie  S  T  R  l  C. 
rule  of  which  all  Christians  are  to  be  juclged,  and  having  — : — '. — 


proved  that  that  law  was  no  other  than  the  moral  law,  the 
observance  of  which,  joined  with  faith  in  Christ,  proceeding 
from  faith  and  tempered  with  the  gi'ace  of  God  and  the 
great  indulgence  revealed  in  the  Gospel,  is  required  by  all 
as  a  necessaiy  condition  to  the  obtaining  justification  and 
salvation,  I  form  my  argument  against  the  Antinomians. 
My  words  are :  "  These  things  being  premised,  there  arises 
at  length  an  unanswerable  argnment,  in  my  opinion  at  least, 
against  these  Antinomians  and  Sohfidiaus.  AAlioever  is 
justified  by  God  through  Christ  is  acquitted  by  the  law  of 
Christ :  but  by  faith  alone  without  works  no  one  is  acqnitted 
by  the  law  of  Christ :  therefore,  &c.  The  minor  proposition 
alone  of  this  syllogism  wants  proof,  which  may  be  thiis  given 
it.  Whoever  is  acquitted  by  the  law  of  Christ,  must  neces- 
sarily  fulfil  that  law ;  but  by  faith  alone  without  works  no 
one  fulfils  the  law  of  Christ.  Therefore  by  faith  alone  with- 
out works  no  one  is  acquitted  by  the  law  of  Christ."  You 
meet  these  remarks  thus  :  "  In  this  argument  which  you  cry 
out  is  unanswerable  there  is  a  great  ambiguity  of  expression, 
unworthy  of  a  theologian.  The  fraud  hes  in  the  words, 
'  the  law  of  Christ.'  The  law  of  Christ  means  two  things : 
1.  The  moral  law  of  God,  which  is  not  done  away  by  Christ, 
but  confirmed,  and  is  enjoined  on  our  consciences  as  the  rule 
of  obedience,  with  an  obhgation  to  foUow  it :  but  this  is  not 
put  forward  as  the  rule  of  our  justification,  as  St.  Paul  de- 
clares  in  the  plainest  words  Gal.  ii.  16,  21.  2.  The  law  of 
faith,  as  the  Apostle  calls  that  way  of  justifyiug  a  sinner  Avliich 
God  has  shewn  forth  in  the  Gospel  through  Christ.  Now  you  Roni..3.27. 
confound  these  two  things;  and  because  the  minor  premiss  of 
the  former  syllogism  is  diaraetrically  opposed  to  St.  Paul's 
words,  Rom.  xiv.  28,  you  strive  to  provc  it  by  plapug  with 
equivocal  terms.  '  Whoever  is  acquitted  by  the  law  of  Christ, 
(suppose,  by  the  righteousuess  of  faith,)  must  fulfil  that  law. 
But  by  faith  alone  without  works  no  one  fulfils  the  law  of 


90  Christians  to  bejudged  by  this  law. 

S  TRI  C.  Christ,  (i.  e.  the  moral  law),     Therefore  by  faith  alone  with- 


XII. 


out  works,  no  oue  is  acquitted  by  tlie  Gospel-law  of  Christ.' 
Who  does  not  see  the  equivocation  and  fallacy?  although 
by  faith  alone  without  works  no  one  fulfils  the  moral  law, 
nay,  though  no  one  absolutely  fulfils  the  moral  law,  and  no 
one  therefore  can  attain  righteousness  by  the  moral  law,  yet 
whosoever  beheves  in  God  through  Christ  fulfils  the  Gospel- 
law  of  Christ  concerning  justification  by  faith  in  the  blood 
of  Christ,  and  on  that  ground  is  acquitted  of  the  guilt  of  bis 
sins.  True  and  living  faith  is  the  sole  condition  of  justifica- 
tion according  to  the  Gospel-law  of  Christ.  He  who  denies 
this  after  having  seriously  read  through  St.  PauPs  argumeut, 
is  as  impious  as  he  is  mad,'' 

ANS  WER  TO  STRICTURE  XII. 

§  1.  This  strictiu'e  of  yours  is  a  mere  atrocious  calumny. 
Candour  in  controversy,  especially  theological  controversy, 
I  have  always  desired  and  sought  after,  keeping  as  far  as 
possible  from  equivocatious,  deceits,  and  underhand  prac- 
tices  in  all  cases,  more  especially  those  on  which  the  sal- 
vation  of  souls  turns.  Of  such  artifices  the  cause  you  have 
undertaken  against  the  plainest  truth  may  stand  in  need  : 
but  truth,  Avhich  I  am  defending,  has  no  need  of  such  corners 
and  hiding  places.  In  this  chapter  I  lay  down  first  by 
way  of  foundation,  (which  is  allowed  by  all  the  reformers,) 
that  the  word  justification  is  a  forensic  or  law  term,  and  so  in 
its  first  notion  bears  with  it  an  idea  of  a  law  proceeding. 
Whence  I  infer,  that  in  our  justification,  as  in  every  law  pro- 
ceeding, before  every  thing  eise  the  law  must  first  be  laid 
down  by  the  rule  of  which  we  are  to  be  judged;  conse- 
quently  that  no  one  is  properly  justified  or  acquitted  M'ho 
has  not  fulfilled  the  law  by  the  rule  of  which  he  is  judged. 
This  bcing  laid  down,  I  go  on  to  enquire  what  the  law  is,  by 
the  judgment  of  which  we  Christians  must  stand  ?  By  the 
plainest  testimony  of  St.  James  the  Apostle,  I  shcAv  that  the 
v6\u>i  law  by  which  we  are  to  be  judged  is  'the  law  of  liberty,'  or  'the 
Afu  €pms.  j,Q^-j^|  j.^^^^j  ^  g  ^f  ci^j-igi;  Q^j.  king,  which  among  other  things 

ßaaiMKÖs.  has  tliis  commaud,  "Thou  shalt  love  tliy  neighbour  as  thy- 
sclf.'^     At  Icngth  I  concludc,  that  the  royal  law  of  which 


The  moral  laiv  ihe  laio  of  Christ.  91 

St.  James   speaks,   and  by  Tvliich  he  declares  Tve  sliall  be  s  T  R  i  c. 

judged;   is  no    other  tlian    the  moral  law  as   Christ    set    it 

forth  and  completed  it^  and  delivered  it  from  the  INIount 
(standing  in  the  place  of  Sinai)  as  His  law  to  His  disciples. 
I  say  and  prove,  that  the  observance  of  this  law  attempered 
by  the  grace  of  the  Gospel  is  demanded  by  Christ  of  aU 
Christians,  as  an  absolutely  necessary  condition  of  His  cove- 
nant.  All  this  being  premised  and  estabhshedj  I  then 
argue  thns  against  the  Antinomians,  (whose  cause  I  should 
be  sorry  to  see  defended  by  a  divine  of  the  English  Chiirch) : 
Whoever  is  justified  by  God  through  Christ,  &c.  as  abore. 
In  each  proposition  of  each  syllogism  I  meant  the  same  law 
of  Christ  (without  any  equivocation)  :  but  not  being  able  to 
overtui'n  the  grounds  of  my  argument,  you  have  feigned  an 
equivocation  at  your  own  pleasui'e,  that  by  this  last  resource 
you  may  escape  the  point  of  my  vreapon. 

§  2.  But,  my  Censurer,  the  charge  recoils  on  your  own 
head.  By  a  -^Tetched  and  that  a  manifold  fraud,  you  cheat 
and  deceive  your  reader,  or  eise  you  are  yourself  cheated  and 
deceived.  For  1  st.  you  hold  a  twofold  law  of  Christ  as  laid 
down  in  the  Gospel,  and  imposed  on  us  Christians.  Hitherto 
I  should  have  thought  (following  the  great  mass  of  divines) 
that  there  was  but  one  law  for  Christians,  as  there  is  but  one 
legislator.  May  I  ask  what  divine  in  his  senses  ever  dreamt 
of  the  distinction  between  the  moral  law  of  Christ,  and  the 
Gospel  law  of  Christ  ?  Is  not  the  moral  law,  as  far  as  it  is  a 
law  of  Chiist,  i.  e.  set  forth  by  Chi'ist,  and  imposed  on  Chris- 
tians by  the  Gospel,  (under  which  relation  alone  we  have 
considered  it  in  this  chapter),  the  Gospel  law? 

§  3.  You  say,  2ndly,  that  the  moral  law  is  not  done  away, 
but  confirmed  by  Christ,  and  enjoined  on  our  consciences  as 
the  rule  of  obedience,  together  with  an  Obligation  on  us  to 
go  by  it;  but  what  that  obhgation  is  you  do  not  explain. 
Pray  teil  me,  teil  me  plainly,  Are  we  bound  to  obey  the 
moral  law,  as  confirmed  by  Christ,  at  the  hazard  of  our  soul, 
or  only  by  the  bond  of  gratitude  ?  If  you  affirm  the  latter, 
you  embrace  the  pestilent  heresy  of  the  Antinomians,  and 
with  them  all  those  absurd  dogmas  which  you  just  now  pro- 
fessed  to  abhor.  But  if  you  hold  the  former,  you  must  con- 
fess  that  this  law  is  put  forth  by  Christ  as  the  rule  of  our 


93  Observance  of  this  law  tivofold. 

s  T  R I  c.  justification ;  i.  e.  that  tlie  sincere  observance  of  that  law  is  a 
-^^^' conclition  absolutely  required  in  the  Gospel  to  our  justifica- 
tion. The  gronnd  of  the  conchision  is,  that  as  far  as  any 
thing  is  required  at  the  hazard  of  the  soiü  and  as  necessary 
to  salvation,  so  far  the  same  is  required  as  necessary  to  jus- 
tification ;  which  I  have  proved  above  clearlv  in  the  exami-. 
nation  of  the  Seventh  Stricture,  §  2 — 5.  That  the  reader 
however  may  be  better  able  to  judge  how  what  was  there 
Said  may  be  applied  to  the  present  question,  it  must  be  ob- 
served  that  there  is  as  it  were  a  twofold  observance  of  the 
moral  law  given  to  us  by  Christ,  one  which  is  conceived  by 
the  will  and  firm  purpose  of  mind,  and  is  fulfilled  by  the 
inward  aff'ection  of  the  mind  at  least;  the  other  which  is 
perfected  in  ver}^  deed,  or  in  holy  living.  An  observance 
of  the  former  kiud  is  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation ;  and 
consequently  is  necessary  in  order  that  a  man  may  obtain 
the  grace  of  the  first  justification.  For  God  holds  no  one 
accepted  to  salvation,  and  consequently  justifies  no  one  who 
has  not  yet  attained  to  that  love  of  God  and  his  neighbour 
TfKos  Tvs  Avliicli  is  "  tlie  end  of  the  commandment,"  (i.  e.  the  end 
■n^apayy€-  ^^|^-g|^  Qq^  intcuds  iu  His  law,  and  in  which,  however 
iTim.  1.5.  attained.  He  acquiesces,)  or  again  to  use  the  words  of 
St.  Paul,  who  is  not  yet  endued  "with  faith  perfected  by 
love."  The  other  observance  of  the  law  is  required  for 
salvation,  on  the  supposition  that  God  grant  life,  and  con- 
sequently is  required  to  retain  and  preserve  the  grace  of 
justification.  In  a  word,  I  would  say  that  he  who  devotes 
himself  to  Christ,  his  King,  and  with  firm  purpose  of  mind 
promises  obcdience  to  'the  royal  law^  to  be  performed  by 
the  grace  of  Christ,  has,  according  to  the  Gospel  covenaut,  a 
right  to  salvation ;  but  a  right  depending  and  granted  on  the 
condition  of  his  performing  in  act  the  obedience  which  he 
has  vowcd,  provided  that  God  grant  him  lifo.  Wliencc  it 
is  evident,  that  the  observance  of  the  moral  law  given  by 
Christ,  as  far  as  it  is  required  to  salvation,  so  far  also  is 
required  to  justification.  That  first  observance  of  the  law  is 
necessary  for  any  one  to  acquire  a  right  to  salvation  by  the 
gi'ace  of  God  in  Christ,  i.  e.  be  justified;  but  the  other  is 
required  that  any  one  may  not  fall  from  his  right  to  salvation, 
i.  e.   lose  the   grace   of  justification   once   obtained.     And, 


"Law  qfioorks^'  the  Mosaic  laiv.  93 

tlierefore,  turn  any  way  you  can^  you  must  either  yield  on  STRIC. 
this  poiut  to  my  argumenta  or  secede  (wliicli  God  forbid)  to     ^^^' 
the  camp  of  the  Antinomians. 

§  4.  3rdly.  Very  unsoimdly  is  the  passage  of  the  Apostle, 
Gal.  ii.  16^  21^  adduced  by  you  to  support  your  supposition. 
For  the  Apostle  there  is  treating  not  of  the  moral  law  con- 
firmed  by  Christ^  the  sincere  observance  of  which  joined  Avitli 
faith  in  Christ  and  proceeding  from  faith  is  required  in  the 
Gospel  as  a  necessary  condition  for  obtaining  salvation ;  but 
either  of  the  ritual  law^  the  observance  of  which  the  Judaizing 
false  Apostles  taught  was  to  be  necessarily  joined  with  faith 
in  Christ,  if  a  man  would  be  saved,  or  of  the  whole  Mosaic 
covenaut  which  had  been  broken  up  by  Christ  the  Mediator, 
and  faith  in  Him.  It  pains  one  to  repeat  these  things  so 
often,  which  are  so  clear  and  evident,  and  which  have  been 
proved  at  length  again  and  again. 

§  5.  4thly.  Very  dangerously  do  you  interpret  the  law  of 
works  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  (and  which  he  opposes 
to  the  law  of  faith  Rom.  iii.  27,)  as  the  moral  law  given  by 
Clirist  to  His  disciples.  Nay,  I  know  not  that  any  thing  has 
ever  been  uttered  or  put  forward  by  the  most  profligate 
Libertine,  which  is  more  absurd,  more  harmful  and  danger- 
ous,  tlian  this  interpretation  of  yours.  See  what  I  said  in 
examination  of  Strictm^e  X.  §  3,  whence  it  will  be  seen  that 
this  interpretation  of  yours  is  confined  entirely  to  yourself, 
neither  can  it  be  defended  by  the  authority  of  any  approved 
writer,  even  among  the  latter  divines,  for  they,  when  they 
call  the  moral  law  a  law  of  works,  mean  the  moral  law  not 
as  it  has  been  set  forth  and  imposed  by  Christ  on  His  dis- 
ciples, as  recited  in  the  sermon  by  St.  Matthew ;  (they  were 
never  so  foolish ;)  but  as,  viewed  without  reference  to  Christ, 
it  demands  from  man,  at  the  peril  of  his  soul,  an  exactness 
of  most  perfect  virtue  and  unattainable  obedience.  But 
these  also  (if  I  may  be  allowed  to  say  so)  seem  to  me  to 
have  mistaken  the  Apostle^s  meaning.  "  The  law  of  works  v6ixos 
or  deeds"  (as  an  old  Interpreter  excellently  hath  it)  is  in  ^p'^'^*'' 
truth  nothing  eise  with  the  Apostle  than  the  Mosaic  law 
viewed  carnally  and  according  to  the  letter,  which  requii'cs 
many  cxternal  and  ritual  works  (more  properly  called  ep<ya) ; 
and  which  as  far  as  regards  morality  itself  is  content  with 


94  Obedience  to  it  chrefly  external. 

STRIC.  that  rigliteousness  whicli  consists  in  external  deeds;  inas- 
— i. — ! —  much  as  it  only  denounces  death  ou  tlie  external  acts  of 
niurder,  adultery,  &c.,  not  on  the  inward  siuful  affections. 
Tliat  tliis  is  true,  viz.,  tliat  the  law  of  works  of  wliich  the 
Apostle  speaks  is  the  Mosaic  law,  viewed  cai'ually  and  ac- 
cording  to  the  letter,  is  e\ident  from  the  whole  context  of 
the  passage  which  is  contained  in  vv.  27 — 30.  The  words 
are,  "Whei-e  is  boasting  then?  It  is  excluded.  By  what 
law  ?  of  works  ?  Nay  :  bnt  by  the  law  of  faith.  Therefore 
•we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the 
deeds  of  the  law.  Is  He  the  God  of  the  Jews  only  ?  Is  He 
not  also  of  the  Gentiles?  Yes  of  the  Gentilcs  also  :  seeinsr  it 
is  one  God,  whicli  shall  justify  the  circumcision  by  faith  and 
uncircumcision  through  faith."  Here  the  Apostle  proves 
that  a  man  is  not  justified  bj^  the  law  of  works  by  the  argu- 
ment  that  God  is  God  not  only  of  the  Jews,  but  of  the 
Gentiles  also.  Which  reasoning  plainly  sliews  that  St.  Paul 
in  this  passage  thought  chiefly  of  that  law  of  deeds  or  rites, 
which  belonged  to  the  Jews  only,  and  as  '  a  middle  wall  of 
partition'  divido  them  from  the  Gentiles."  And  this  is  no 
new  interprctation  j  as  the  passage  is  thus  explained  (not 
to  mcntion  other  ancient  writers)  by  the  ancient  author  of 
the  Commentaries  which  are  attributed  to  St.  Ambrose,  botli 
where  he  writcs  on  this  passage,  and  in  other  places  also. 
His  words  in  the  very  beginning  of  liis  Preface  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  [p.  209]  are  very  rcmarkable  :  '^Every  one," 
he  says,  "  who  bclieves  in  Christ,  and  yet  observes  the  law  of 
works,  does  not  understand  Christ.  Like  as  the  Symmachians 
who  derive  thcir  origin  from  the  Pharisees,  who  keeping  all 
the  law  call  themselves  Christians,  &c.  For  if  they  under- 
stood  that  Christ  was  God,  the}^  would  expect  nothing  from 
the  law  of  works,  i.  e.  from  the  new  moons,  the  Sabbath, 
circumcision,  disceruing  of  meats,"  See.  These  words  are 
akin  to  what  the  same  author  writes  on  the  Epistle  to 
Galatians  iii.  19.  [p.  221.]  "  The  law  of  works,"  he  says,  i.  e. 
"  that  of  ISIoscs,  was  placcd  in  the  midst  betwcen  the  promise 
when  first  madc,  and  the  seed  to  whom  the  promise  was 
made,  i.  e.  between  Abraham  and  the  Saviour,  and  on  this 
account  was  it  givcn  long  after  the  promise  was  made,  that 
by  this  distinction  the  law  might  be  shewn  to  be  one  thing. 


Admitted  of  perfection,  and  so  of  boasting.  95 

tlie  proniise  another ;  that  so  tlie  peoplc  of  God  separated  S  T  R I C. 
from  the  Geutiles  miglit  be  iustiaicted  in  tbe  fear  of  God,  — - — '- — 
that  they  might  be  made  worthy  to  receive  tbe  promise,  wbicb 
is  Cbrist.     It  is  called,  bowever,  tbe  law  of  works,  because  it 
teacbes  wbat  sbould  be  exterually  done  according  to  God's 
command   concerning  sacrifices,  tbe  first-born,  tithes,   and 
all  otber  tbings."     But  tbe  Maw  of  works'  did  not  exclude 
boasting  for   a  twofold  reason :  first,  tbere  were  Jews  wbo 
could  bonestly  allege  an  exact  observance  of  tbis  law  botli 
as  regards  its  moral  and  its  ceremonial  duties.     Snob  was 
St.  Paul,  wbo  says  tbat  toucbing  tbat  external  rigbteousness 
of  tbe  law  be  Avas  actually  'blameless.'     Sucli  was  tbe  young  a^s^TTTos. 
man,  wbo  as  regards  moral  duties  boasted  tbat  be  bad  ob- 
served  tbe  wbole  Decalogue   almost  from  bis  very   cradle.  Mat.  19. 
And  so  if  tbis  obseiTance  of  tbe  deeds  of  tbe  law,  if  tbis  ^^" 
external  rigbteousness  bad  sufficed  to  salvation,  tbere  Avould 
bave  been  men  wbo  would  bare  bad  no  need  of  forgivcness 
of  sins  and  a  Redeemer's  sacrifice.     Lastly,  for  tbis  external  vid.  Gal. 
rigbteousness  buman  will  was  commonly  suflBcient,  and  tbat   '  "  *' 
special  grace  of  tbe  Holy  Spirit,  wbicb  is  promised  in  tbe 
Gospel  as    exacting    a   spiritual   rigbteousness,   was    not  so 
necessary.     It  seemed  wortli  wbile  mentioning  tbis  by  tbe 
way,  because  it  is  an  Observation  of  no  small  moment. — Let 
US  proceed. 

§  6.  5tbly.  Herein  you  surely  err  grievously,  in  tbinking  tbat 
^tbe  law  of  faitb^  bas  been  so  called  by  tbe  Apostle  because 
it  requires  notbing  besides  faitb,  because  it  is  fulfilled  by 
bare  faitb,  as  a  single  vii'tue.  Tbe  law  of  faitb  requires  not 
faitb  alone,  but  'faitb  perfected  by  love,^  as  tbe  Apostle  bim- 
self  bears  witness  Gal.  v.  6 ;  ''  In  Cbrist  Jesus  ueitber  cir-  5i'  äyaTrijs 
cumcision  availetb  any  tbing,  nor  uucircumcision ;  but  faitb  ^"fP^^' 
wbicb  worketb  by  \o\e."  ^Aliat  tbat  faitb  perfected  by  love 
is,  tbe  same  Apostle  clearly  explains  in  anotbcr  place,  1  Cor. 
vii.  19;  "  Circumcision  is  notbing,  and  uncii"Cumcision  is 
notbing,  but  tbe  keeping  of  tbe  commandments  of  God.^' 
From  tbe  comparison  of  tbese  passages  it  is  evident  tbat 
'  tbe  keeping  of  tbe  commandments  of  God,'  i.  e.  tbe  sincere 
observance  of  tbe  commandments  of  God,  (of  tbose,  viz., 
wbicb  are  of  universal  and  pcrpetual  '  Obligation,')  is  com- 
prised  by  tbe  Apostle  under  tbe  law  of  faitb.     Ileuce  in  tbe 


96  ''Laiv  offaith^'  requires  obedience. 

s  T  R I  c.  Cliurcli  of  Christ,  in  tlie  age  next  after  tlie  Apostles,  it  was 
-^^^-  held  to  be  catliolic  and  orthodox  to  teach  that  man  is  justi- 
fied  by  the  moral  precepts  of  the  law,  as  welJ  as  to  say  that 
man  is  justified  by  faith;  and  those  two  modes  of  speak- 
ing  were  not  thought  to  be  any  way  inconsistent  with  each 
other.  Irenseus  the  disciple  of  the  apostolic  Polycarp  bears 
lib.iv.c.27.  ample  testimony,  wi'iting  thus :  "  The  Lord  did  not  destroy 
[c  13.  p.  ^i^g  'natural  duties^  of  the  law,  by  whieh  a  man  is  justified, 
(which  were  observed  before  the  law  was  given  by  those  who 
were  justified  by  faith  and  pleased  God,)  but  He  extended 
and  completed  them."  The  whole  chapter  is  well  worth 
reading.  "What  follows  then?  The  law  of  the  Gospel  is 
therefore  called  '  the  law  of  faith,^  because  all  the  obedience 
which  it  requires  proceeds  from  faith  in  Christ,  and  as  it 
were  sprouts  from  it  as  its  root,  (whence  it  is  called  plainly 
"obedience  of  faith,^'  Rom.  x^ä.  21,  and  elsewhere,)  and  be- 
cause it  is  accomplished  by  the  gi'ace  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
which  is  obtained  by  faith ;  because,  lastly,  it  is  by  the  effi- 
cacy  alone  of  the  promise,  made  and  ratified  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  which  is  embraced  by  faith,  and  not  by  its  own  merit, 
that  it  lias  power  to  salvation.  ^Yhence  it  avails  to  salva- 
tion  albeit  it  is  imperfect.  See  Harm.  Apost.  II.  Diss.  v. 
tlu'oughout. 

§  7.  6thly.  You  say  that  the  moral  law  is  fulfiUed  by  no 
one ;  if  you  speak  of  the  complete  and  absolutely  exact  ful- 
filling  of  the  law,  (of  which  you  are  e^idently  speaking,)  true 
it  may  be,  but  it  is  nothing  to  the  point.  For  my  ai'gument 
rests  on  other  grounds,  ^-iz.  these  two :  1 .  That  there  is  a 
certain  observance  of  the  law  required  from  us  at  the  peril 
of  our  soul,  and  as  a  coudition,  an  indispensable  conditiou, 
of  our  obtaining  salvation.  2.  The  observance  of  the  law, 
which  is  required  for  our  salvation,  is  also  requii'ed  for  our 
justification.  How  sure  this  latter  ground  is,  I  have  already 
too  oftcn  shewn.  The  former  proposition  no  one  but  the 
lowest  Libertine  will  dare  deny;  and  wlioso  denies  it  is  re- 
Mat.5. 19,  futed  by  the  most  piain  words  of  our  Lord  Himself.  The 
21 '2T'^'>7"  ""'hole  of  the  law  is  comprised  by  Christ  in  these  two  things, 
viz.  "  that  we  love  God  above  all  things,  and  our  neighbour 
as  ourselves."  That  these  two  things  not  only  can,  but 
ouglit  also  to  be  performed  by  all  who  would  be  saved,  is 


The  Lato  and  the  Gospelfrom  the  same  Author.         97 

certain.     There  is  a  well-known  passage  of  Irenseus,  (which  STRIC. 

although  it  mostly  aimed  at  the  Marcionites,  may  be  applied ^- 

but  too  fitly  to  our  Antinomians) ;  "  Since,  therefore,  both  in  lib.  iv.  c. 
tbe  Law  and  in  the  Gospel,  the  first  and  chief  precept  is  '  to  -^^^y^^ 
love  the  Lord  our  God  with  all  the  heart;'   and  after  that^  [c  12,  i. 
the  next  like  to  it,  'to  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself/   it 
is  manifest  that  there  is  but  one  and  the  same  framer  both 
of  the  Law  and  the  Gospel.     For  whereas  in   both  testa- 
ments  the  preeepts  of  '  a  perfect'  life  are  the  same,  they 
shew  that  it  was  the  same  God,  Who  gave  indeed  particular 
preeepts  peculiar  to  each ;  while  the  more  eminent  and  chief 
commands,  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  be  saved.  He 
hath  given  the  same  in  both." 

§  8.  7thly.  You  say  that  "true  and  li\ang  faith  is  the 
sole  condition  of  justification  according  to  the  Gospel  law  of 
Christ."  This  I  acknowledge  to  be  most  true,  provided  that 
*li%äng  faitV  be  defined  (as  it  should  be)  after  the  Apostle, 
"faith  perfected  by  love."  For  such  a  faith  fulfils  (as  I 
Said)  the  whole  law  of  Christ,  of  which  I  am  speaking. 
Lastly,  the  reproaches  which  you  throw  upon  me,  calling 
me  impious  and  mad,  I  cannot  dwell  upon :  to  such-like 
reproaches,  with  which  I  have  been  so  often  assailed,  I  am 
now  well-nigh  callous :  my  trust  is  in  a  good  conscience, 
which  is  to  me  a  wall  of  brass,  to  repel  without  trouble  all 
the  calumnies  of  my  enemies.  My  fiercest  adversaries  must 
one  day  stand  with  me  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ, 
to  whose  tribunal  I  (in  other  respects  the  chief  of  sinners)  in 
this  cause  certainly,  (I  am  speaking  of  the  case  in  the  main,) 
willingly  and  gladly  appeal.  Meanwhile,  my  Ceusurer,  re- 
member  our  Lord's  saying,  "  By  thy  words  shalt  thou  be  Mat.  12. 
justified,  and  by  thy  words  shalt  thou  be  condemned." 


STRICTUEE  XIII. 

ON  I.  DISS.  iv.  4.  p.  24. 

In  this  chapter,  after  weighing  the  three  acts  of  faith  as 
they  are  commonly  assigned  by  divines,  (viz.  knowledge, 
assent,  and  confidence),  I  shew  satisfactorily  that  there  is  not 
one  of  thcm  with  which,  viewed  by  itself,  justification  is 
necessarily  linked.     The  two  former  acts  of  faith  (as  acts  to 

BULL.  H 


98  Censiirer's  vieiv  ofjustifying  confidence. 

s  T  R I  c.  which  eithei*  verv  few,  or  none  at  all,  attribute  the  power  of 
— ^ — !.i—  justification)  I  am  content  but  sliglitly  to  touch  upon.     The 


tliird  act,  liowever,  whicli  they  call  '  confidence/  I  "weigb  with 
fuller  and  more  accurate  examination.  'V^'lJlicll  examination 
I  prefaced  tlius  :  "  The  remaining  act  of  faith  is  called  '  con- 
fidence/ and  in  this  the  Solifidians  place  their  gi'eatest  con- 
fidence; we  shall,  therfefore,  more  carefully  consider  what 
they  say  on  this  point.  And  first  it  would  be  very  proper 
to  enquire  what  they  mean  by  this  confidence;  for  they 
involve  this  subject  in  such  intricate  expressions,  that  it  is 
scarcely  possible  to  understand  them ;  intelligibly  and  con- 
sistently  to  explain  what  they  say  lipon  it,  requires  more 
than  mortal  "vvit,  Let  him  \rho  thinks  otherwise  try,  and 
hoAvever  unwilling,  he  will  be  obliged  to  confess  the  truth  of 
what  has  been  asserted."  In  answer  to  this  you  write  in  the 
margin  :  "  Although  it  be  a  difficult  task  to  gire  an  accurate 
definition  of  any  thing,  and  the  definition  of  spiritual  grace, 
wliich  is  'beyond  the  senses'  and  above  the  natural  under- 
standing,  is  by  far  the  most  difficult ;  yet  it  is  not  impossible 
to  explain  intelligibly  the  nature  of  saving  faith  (to  use  this 
expression),  or  the  formal  cause  and  the  justifying  act  of 
faith.  It  is  easier,  indeed,  to  say  what  a  thing  is  not  than 
what  it  is.  But  this  does  not  defy  the  power  of  words.  It 
is  proved  that  faith  does  not  consist  in  the  assent  of  the 
mind  given  to  the  Gospel,  and  that  most  strongly ;  because 
an  incarnate  deWl  can  have  this  faith,  just  as  the  very  devils 
believe  both  that  God  is,  and  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  Simon 
Magus  was  convinced  of  the  ti-uth  of  the  Gospel,  and  belicved 
on  account  of  the  power  of  the  Apostles'  works.  This  fulness 
of  faith,  or  assent  of  the  intellect,  although  it  be  a  disposition 
of  the  mind  whicli  precedes  saving  faith,  is  yet  short  of  living 
faith.  The  same  must  be  allowed  of  conditional  trust,  which 
is  often  ineffectual  from  the  greater  power  of  the  flesh  turn- 
ing  away  from  Christ's  yoke.^^  In  the  next  page  you  add : 
"Allow  me,  according  to  the  slenderness  of  my  ability,  to 
describe  what  it  will  be  more  comfort  to  experience  within, 
than  to  speak  aloud.  The  sa%'ing  faith  of  the  elect  is  a  lively 
inclination  of  the  will,  (guided  by  the  intellect  which  has 
been  cnlightened  by  the  Gospel,  and  moved  by  the  Holy 
iPet.i.2i.  Spirit,)   to  trust  in  God  through  Christ,  or  in  Christ  the 


That  it  is  the  formal  cause  ofjustifyingfcnth.  99 

Mediator^  for  tlie   obtaining   eternal   salvation,  or   for   the  s  T  R  i  c. 
obtaining  pardon  and  life  througli  tlie  mercy  of  God  and  — : '— 


the   merits  of    Christ.     The   formal  act  of  Ihing   faith  is, 
throwing  away  all  hope  of  salvation  in  the  Avorld  or  oneself, 
with  the  Tvhole  lieart  to  put  confidence  in  God  and  Christ 
for  the  obtaining  of  the  promises  offered  in  the  Gospel,  on 
account  of  and  through  the  goodness  of  God,  His  truth  and 
power.     By  this  faith  or  confidence  Abraham  glorified  God." 
Not  content  with  this,  von  bid  me  turn  to  the  spare  leaf  at 
the  beginning  of  the  book,  where  von  give  a  long  explanation 
of  TOur  idea  of  justifring  faith  in  these  words  :    "  Vse  are 
treating  of  the  proper  idea  of  saving  faith,  and  that  peculiar 
act  which  the   Scripture  expresses  by  'believing  in  or  on -rh  in(niv- 
God,'  'or  Christ,'  and  '  on  or  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.'j'^^^j,;, 
Tlie  Greek  interpreters  of  the  New  Testament  veiy  often  Q«"^"- 
use  the  words  iXiri^eiv  ek  rov  Oeov  for  the  same  expression  e^l  or  eis 
which  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  render  by  Triareveiv  YJ^ivS/xari. 
ek  Qeov  and  et?  Xpiarov.     But  I  conceive  the  primaiy  act  Kypi'ou. 
of  faith,  and  its  formal  cause,  (so  to  speak,)  to  be  the  con- 
fidence in  God  or  Christ  for  salvation  in  every  way,  which 
God  promises  us  through  Christ ;    and  this   confidence,  by 
which  man  rests  on  God,  and  throws  all  his  bürden  and 
care   upon    God,  placing   all   his   hope   in  God  alone,  and 
flying    to    God    as    to    a    rock,  and    upon    Him    building 
himself  as  upon  a  rock,  is   distinct  from  believing,  as  also 
from  acting;  and  further  still  removed  (viz.  by  two  degrees) 
from  the  persuasion  of  the  favour  of  God  in  the  pardon  of 
cur  sins ;  which  fiül  assurance  some  would  wrongly  have  to 
be  justifying  faith,  but  which  you,  most  learned  Sir,  power- 
fully  refute.     A  man  must  be  just  before  he  knows  he  is 
justified ;  but  a  man  is  just  by  faith,  and  therefore  faith,  by 
and  on  account  of  which  any  one  is  justified,  precedes  the 
certainty  of  one's  justification.     This  persuasion  presupposes 
the  knowledge  of  our  own  faith,  and  results  by  way  of  syllo- 
gism  from  the   general  proposition  of  the  Gospel,  and  the 
assumption   or  reflex   apprehension  of  our   State    in   faith : 
whence  a  Christian,  knowing  that  he  has  fulfilled  the  con- 
dition  of  the  Gospel,  is  satisfied  of  his  pardon  and  reconcilia- 
tion  with  God.     T  mention  these  things  that  you  may  know 
that  I  am  glad  to  agree  with  you,  and  that  it  is  onh'  when 

h'2 


100  This  trust  productive  of  ohedience. 

s  T  R  r  c.  compelled  by  tlie  force  of  truth,  that  I  dissent  from  you.  The 
proper  act,  however,  of  justifying  faith^  I  hold  to  lie  between 
that  conditional  trust  by  which  a  man  is  persuaded  that  he 
will  be  saved,  if  he  submits  to  God's  conditions,  &c.  and 
the  fruit  of  faith^  which  is  obedience.  Truly"  hath  the  philo- 
sopher Said,  Tä  evavria  TrapäXKrfKa  fiäXkov  lyvcopifia,  '  con- 
traries,  when  side  by  side,  are  seen  more  prominently.'  The 
corrupt  flesh  is  not  only  guilty  of  incredulity,  beeause  it 
receives  not  in  faith  and  witli  firm  assent  the  word  of  God, 
but  despises  it ;  but  is  chargeable  also  with  unbelief,  or  rather 
distrust,  and  a  sinner  dares  not  rely  in  security  on  the  good- 
ness  and  power  of  God,  and  trust  to  the  promises  of  God. 
This  depravity  of  an  unbelieving  heart  is  the  mother  of  dis- 
obedience.  One  need  not  relate  at  length  the  rebellion  of 
the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  and  the  well  known  example 
of  the  Samaritan  nobleman,  It  will  be  evident  to  him  who 
weighs  the  matter^  that  the  fault  of  distrust  is  an  evil  in 
additiou  to  that  of  incredulity.  On  the  other  side,  it  is 
evident  that  a  soul  touched  with  Divine  grace,  and  con- 
strained  by  the  gentle  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  con- 
verted  to  God,  and  looks  to  God  with  an  inclination  of  the 
will ;  and  not  only  assents  to  the  truth  of  His  promises,  and 
is  moved  heart  and  soul  to  embrace  them,  but  also  puts  its 

Jobi3. 15.  trust  in  God,  and  clings  most  closely  to  God,  as  holy  Job 
says,  that  he  will  trust  in  God,  even  though  He  slay  him. 
This  trust  begets  a  readiness  to  obey.  A  traveller  who 
trusts  in  an  experieuced  and  faithful  guido,  follows  his  guide 
securely  in  a  path  unknown  to  him.  Abraham,  relying  on 
the  gracious  providence  of  God,  followed  God  into  an  unknown 
land  with  a  blind  but  most  wise  obedience.  The  sick  man, 
conscious  of  the  skill  and  bcnevolence  of  his  physician,  if  he 
dare  trust  him,  (for  this  confidence  follows  belief,  as  it  may 
happen,)  will  obey  the  prescriptions  of  his  physician.  Thus, 
he  who  labours  under  sin,  if  he  believe  that  all  his  safety  lies 
in  the  mercy  of  God  and  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  trusts  in 
God  and  Christ,  i.  e.  rests  in  confidence  on  Them,  will  obey 
Christ  most  gladly.  Meantime  the  root,  although  it  bear  fruits 
as  occasion  demands  and  produces  them,  must  be  distinguished 
from  the  shoot  itself.  By  force  of  the  promise,  '  He  that  be- 
Ueveth  in  Him,  he  that  buildeth  on  that  stone  elect  precious. 


Argument  from  the  law  of  opposites.  101 

shall  be  saved ;'  '  tlie  iiist  shall  live  bv  faith/  tliough,  like  the  S  T  R  l  c. 

*  ...  •        •         XIII 

believing  thief,  lie  die  the  next  moment :   justifying  faith  is 


therefore  eonfidence.  For  this  distinction  is  clear :  we'beheve  ii;  jsa. 
the  Word  of  truth ;  we  '  hope'  for  what  is  promised ;  and  we  "^"  ^^• 
'  trust  iu^  the  Promiser,  "Who  is  faithful  and  powerfuh  Injunc- 
tions  as  to  this  trust  are  of  eonstant  occurrence,  Ps.  xsxAii.  3,  5, 
Isa.  xxvi.  4.  Many  benefits  are  annexed  to  this  faith  by  Divine 
promise^  Ps.  ii.  12,  and  xxxii.  10,  and  xxxvii.  40.  Splendid 
instances  of  this  are  put  before  us,  Ps,  xxii.  4,  2  Chron.  xiii.  18. 
They  are  acts  of  the  same  kind,  by  which  we  trust  in  God  for 
externa!  protection  in  this  Hfe,  and  for  eternal  salvation  in 
the  next.  For  there  is  one  common  nature  of  faith  by  wliich 
the  servant  of  God  puts  his  trust  in  Divine  Mercy,  in  His 
Truth  and  Power,  secure  and  most  certain  of  obtaining  any 
promised  benefit.  Of  the  same  kind  is  the  faith  by  which 
Da\dd  trusted  in  God  for  victory  and  for  pardon ;  nay,  by 
which  Christ  Himself,  Who  needed  not  pardon,  trusted  in  Mat.  27. 
God :  this  trust,  I  say,  is  of  the  same  kind  with  the  con-  ^^' 
fidence  of  a  Christian,  by  which  he  trusts  in  God  and  Christ 
for  deliverance  from  sins.  I  will  add  one  other  argument 
only,  the  strength  of  which  I  would  have  you  try ;  it  is  taken 
from  the  law  of  opposites.  When  the  vice,  wherein  the  sin 
consists  in  the  affection  being  ill  placed,  is  opposed  to  virtue, 
the  act  in  both  cases,  i.  e.  both  in  the  vice  and  in  the  virtue, 
is  the  same  in  kind.  When  a  man  is  forbidden  or  found 
fault  with  for  trusting  in  himself,  or  his  own  wit  or  strength, 
Prov.  iii.  5j  resting  in  riches  or  uncertain  Mammon,  Ps.  lii.  7, 
1  Tim.  vi.  17;  in  princes  of  men,  Ps.  cxviii.  8,  9,  and  cxlvi.  5; 
in  an  arm  of  flesh,  Jer.  xvii.  5,  7  :  lastly,  trusting  in  iniquity 
itself  and  rapine,  Ps.  Ixii.  10,  Isa.  xhäi.  10, — the  fault  that  is 
charged  against  him  is  no  other  than  the  trust  he  places  in 
certain  objects.  For  no  one  is  said  to  '  beheve  [auro  credere) 
gold ;'  but  one  is  said  to  trust  in  riches,  when  he  counts  his 
own  riches  as  a  tower  of  security  and  as  a  stay  of  happiness, 
and  rests  on  external  things.  With  equal  reason  faith  in  God 
and  Christ  is  properly  trust,  by  which  mc  trust  in  the  mercy  jer.  17.  7. 
of  God  and  the  merits  of  Christ.  And,  although  there  are 
various  exercises  of  that  faith,  by  which  a  Christian  lives  and 
walks,  there  is  one  common  gronnd  of  all  acts  of  faith, 
though  the  objects  (of  such  faith)  bc  various.     As  it  was  by 


102  Pretended  difficulty  of  the  subject  unreal. 

s  T  R I  c.  a  fflance  of  the  same  kind  that  the  IsraeHte  saw  both  the 

XIII 
-^ '—  sand  that  would  not  profit  him,  and  the  brazen  serpent  hfted 

on  a  pole,  at  sight  of  which  he  obtaiued  salvation ;  so  with  a 

hke  eye  of  faith  the  Christian  looks  to  Christj  his  Redeemer, 

and  God,  his  Protector :  and  with  the  same  confidence  rests 

on  the  good  promises  of  God  for  sufficient   provision  and 

supply  for  liis  jonrneVj  and  for  pardon  and  eternal  life ;  and 

this  faith,  taken  in  this  sense,  is  most  plainly  tanght  by  Christ 

and  His  Apostles  to  be  the  condition  of  justification.     You 

see,  theu,  it  is  not  so  hopeless  a  task  to  conceive  and  explain 

the  idea  of  reliance  or  trust  in  God,  if  Ave  give  attention  to 

the  difterent  expressions  made  use  of  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  &c. 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XIII. 

§  1.  In  this  Strictnre  you  have  proved  my  words,  which 
you  meant  to  refute,  to  be  most  true,  by  a  notable  example. 
I  Said  that  they  who  hold  confidence  to  be  the  formal  act  of 
justifying  faith,  when  they  come  to  explain  their  meaning 
involve  the  subject  in  such  intricate  expressions,  that  it  is 
scarcely  possible  to  understand  them.  Can  any  thing  be 
more  intricate  than  your  words?  I  will  endeavour  to  ans  wer 
what  I  understand,  fairly,  and  with  all  possible  perspicuity ; 
as  to  the  rest  it  must  sutfice  to  make  guesses. 

§  2.  First,  it  seems  very  stränge  to  me,  that  it  should  be 
so  arduous  and  difiicult  a  business,  as  you  openly  confess,  to 
explain  intelligibly  the  notion  which  you  hold,  of  justifying 
faith.  Sui'ely  this  is  a  most  certain  proof  that  such  notion  is 
not  genuine,  but  thoroughly  spurious  and  false.  For  what 
man  in  his  sober  senses  will  you  persuade  that  the  one  duty 
of  man,  on  which  by  God^s  will  his  justification  and  eternal 
salvation  dcpends,  is  so  difficult  to  be  explained  ?  I  have  ever 
held  that  there  are  mysteriös  of  Gospel  doctrine,  to  be  appre- 
hended  by  faith,  which  can  scarcely,  nay  which  cannot  be  ex- 
plained to  the  capacity  of  our  weak  intellect :  but  that  the 
faith  which  is  prescribed  to  us  as  oui*  duty,  is  so  great  a 
mystery,  I  should  never  have  dreamt  tili  now.  You  have 
a  eure  of  souls,  and  feed  a  Christian  flock :  but  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  conceive  how  you  deal  with  your  people.     Doubtless 


Tliis  lahyrinth  of  difficuUies  uyiraveUed.  103 

you  liave  (or  yoii  are  more  fortunate  tlian  your  brethren),  s  T  R  l  C. 
among  your  hearers  some  of  slow  uuderstauding :  How  Avill  -^^^^ 
poor  silly  folk  be  able  to  unclerstandj  what  their  teacher,  who 
is  an  educated  man,  lias  the  greatest  difficulty  to  explain 
even  to  learned  men  ?  Allow  nie,  I  pray  you,  to  state  tliings 
as  they  are.  You  have  turned  from  the  plain  path  of  trutli, 
to  pathless  and  abrupt  ways,  and  are  entaugled  among 
thorns  and  thickets,  so  be  not  angry  witli  me  if  I  civilly  point 
out  to  you  the  right  Avay.  Turn  to  the  passages  in  Scrip- 
ture  in  which  the  faith  which  avails  to  justification  and 
salvation  is  avowedly  explained,  especially  the  texts  so  often 
brought  forward,  Gal.  v.  6,  and  vi.  15,  compared  Avdth 
1  Cor.  vii.  19.  You  will  see  (unless  you  shut  your  eyes), 
that  the  faith  to  which,  according  to  the  Gospel  covenant, 
justification  and  salvation  is  granted,  is  by  no  means  a  siugle 
virtue,  but  that  the  word  is  taken  in  a  eomplex  sense,  and 
that  justifying  faith  is  nothing  eise  than  a  firm  assent  to  the 
Gospel  in  the  understandiug,  which  is  effectual  in  the  wiU 
through  the  true  love  of  God  and  our  neighbour;  or  that 
sort  of  assent  to  the  Gospel  which  is  accompanied  by  a  re- 
formation  of  the  whole  man,  his  heart  and  actions,  or  a 
sincere  observance  of  what  is  taught  in  the  Gospel. 

§  3.  It  must  be  observed  that  your  definition  of  justifying 
faith,  when  given  in  your  own  Avords,  is  very  lame  and  im- 
perfect :  and  accordingly  you  use  many  words  for  a  more 
füll  explanation  of  it,  and  these  are  metaphorical,  and  such 
as  it  is  a  want  of  skiU  to  use  in  the  definition  of  a  thing. 
You  say  that  the  formal  '  cause'  of  justifying  faith  is  "  con- 
fidence  in  God  or  Christ,  for  salvation  in  eveiy  way  which 
God  promises  us  through  Christ.^'  But  who  does  not  see 
that  in  this  definition  there  is  no  essential  difference  ex- 
pressed by  which  a  saAing  faith  may  be  distinguished  from 
the  faith  of  hypocrites  ?  It  is  most  certain  that  too  many 
conceive  in  their  mind  a  confideuce  of  obtaining  salvation  by 
Christ,  who  are  farthest  off  from  a  state  of  justification  and 
salvation.  Aware  of  this,  as  I  fancy,  you  seek  refuge  in  the 
shade  of  metaphorical  expressions.  "  This  confideuce,"  you 
say,  "by  which  a  man  reclines  on  God,  acquiesces,  and 
throws  all  his  care  and  bürden  on  God,  taking  refuge  Avith 
God  as  on  a  rock,"  &c.    I  know  that  some  of  these  metaphors 


104  No  explanation  true  u-hich  excludes  love. 

s  TR  T  C.  fire  also  found  in  the  Scriptures  :  but  I  also  know  that  they 
•^^^^'  are  not  used  to  illustrate  the  poiut  in  question ;  where  they 
do  occur,  the  question  is  not  of  'justifying  confideuce/  but 
'  of  the  confidence  of  a  righteous  man/  as  will  appear 
presently.  But  when  what  is  required  on  our  part  to  justi- 
iication,  is  every  where  in  the  sacred  oracles  explained  in 
piain  words,  why  do  you  leave  these^  to  use  figurative  ex- 
pressions  ?  The  reason  is  evident.  Your  definition  (as  being 
too  scanty,  jejune  and  squalid)  would  disgust  a  reader  at 
first  sight,  were  it  exhibited  at  once  in  its  native  colours ; 
and  so  you  must  wash  it  over  with  the  paint  of  metaphor,  to 
impose  on  him. 

§  4.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  among  the  metaphors 
"which  you  use  to  explain  the  formal  cause  of  saviug  faith, 
there  are  some  whichj  resolved  into  their  proper  meaning, 
plainly  imply  tliat  very  lovej  or  sincere  purpose  of  obedience, 
■vrhich  I  willingly  acknowledge  to  be  the  complement  and 
perfection  of  truly  justifying  faith.  Thus  you  say,  when 
about  to  describe  your  justifying  confidence^  that  '^the  soul 
touched  with  DiWne  grace^  and  constrained  by  the  gentle 
influence  of  the  Holy  Spiiit,  is  converted  to  God,  and  by  a 
voluntary  inclination  looks  to  God,  nay,  most  firmly  cleaves 
to  Him."  Certainly  the  turniug  of  the  soiü  to  God,  in  the 
Scriptures  denotes  repentance,  which  embraces^  as  is  well 
known,  the  whole  condition  of  salvation  required  on  our  part 
in  the  new  covenant.  But  what  eise  can  that  dosest  cleav- 
ing  of  the  soul  to  God  mean,  than  the  dinne  \irtue  of  love, 
by  which  a  man  desires  above  all  things  the  favour  of  God,  and 
Courts  His  love,  determined,  so  that  he  may  obtain  and  pre- 
serve  that  love,  on  obeying  God's  conimandments,  in  spite  of 
all  the  temptations  of  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  de\il,  and 
on  persevering,  by  the  grace  of  God,  in  that  obedience  unto 
dcath  ?  If  while  you  use  these  metaphors  you  do  not  mean 
this,  I  entreat  you,  say  plainly  what  you  do  mean.  So 
wholly  irapossil)le  is  it  inteüigibly  to  explain  any  trust  in 
God,  bringing  with  it  the  saving  effect  of  justificatiou,  which 
does  not,  when  so  explained,  include  in  its  meaning  the  true 
love  of  God  and  a  sincere  purpose  of  obedience. 

§  5.  Trust,  which  you  hold  to  be  the  chief  act  of  justify- 
ing faith,  you  assert  is  "further  removed  by  two  degrees 


This  confidence  the  same  as  füll  assurance.  105 

from  7rXr]po(f)opLa  or  füll  assurance  of  God's  favour  in  tlie  s  T  R I  C. 
forgiveuess  of  sius ;"  but  you  so  describe  that  trust^  tliat  it  ^^^^-  _ 
does  not  seem  to  be  one  step  i'emoved  from  füll  assiirance. 
For  first  you  call  that  trust  '  confidence  :'  now  this  word 
(except  that  by  good  writers  it  is  generally  used  in  a  bad 
sense)  means  a  sure  and  undoubted  persuasiou  about  some- 
thingj  but  the  metaphors  you  use  insinuate  the  same  füll 
assurance.  For,  "  for  a  man  to  rely  and  rest  in  God,  to  cast 
all  his  care  (viz.  of  obtaining  eternal  salvation)  upon  God,  to 
take  refuge  with  God  as  a  rock,  and  to  build  himself  on  Hirn 
as  upon  a  rock,"  these  expressions  of  yours,  I  say,  surely 
point  to  sorae  security  of  mind  as  to  obtaining  salvation. 
What  must  one  think  of  your  expressly  defending  a  security 
of  this  kind  ?  You  say  afterwards,  that  "  it  is  one  common 
nature  of  faith  by  wliich  the  servant  of  God  puts  his  trust  in 
the  mercy,  truth  and  power  of  God,  when  he  is  most  secure 
of  obtaining  any  prornised  benefit."  Teil  me,  how  does  this 
most  sure  security,  which  you  defend,  differ  from  that  füll 
assurance  wliich  you  reject.  If  you  say,  that  this  most  sure 
security  regards  only  the  truth  and  power  of  God  in  perform- 
ing  promises,  by  which  forsooth  we  are  persuaded  that  God 
"wül  make  good  His  promises,  provided  we  perform  the  con- 
ditions  of  the  same,  you  are  plainly  shirking  the  question, 
for  you  yourself  distiuguish  that  conditional  trust  from  the 
confidence  to  which  you  attribute  justification :  and  it  is 
piain  also,  that  that  trust  of  itself  is  not  sufficient  for  justifi- 
cation. By  the  way  I  remark  that  in  the  words  next 
quoted  by  me,  you  speak  of  the  trust  of  the  '  servant  of  God' 
as  to  obtaining  a  prornised  benefit.  But  you  should  re- 
member,  my  Censurer,  that  it  is  no  question  as  to  the  trust 
of  a  man  who  has  already  become  a  servant  of  God,  (for  we 
do  not  deny  that  such  a  man  may  rightly  conceive  in  his 
mind  great  confidence  of  obtaining  promised  benefits,)  but  of 
the  trust  of  a  sinner  striving  to  extricate  himself  from  the 
slavery  of  sin,  and  aspiring  to  the  free  Service  of  God.  Nay, 
you  speak  distinctly  about  trust  which  precedes  all  one's 
obedience,  and  even  readiness  to  obcy,  and  to  this  trust  you 
attribute  justification.  But  what  sort  of  servant  of  God, 
I  pray,  is  he  who  has  not  yet  served  God,  nay  who  has  not 
vet  bound  himself  in  will  to  God's  service  ?  and  what  trust 


10  6  Th'ust,  absolute  and  conditional. 

S  T  R I C.  can  a  man  of  this  sort  conceive  in  his  mind  of  obtaiuing  tlie 

-^^^^-     promises  of  God,  except  tliat  conditional  tiiist,  by  which  he 

is  persuaded  tliat  lie  shall  obtain  the  promised  benefits^  if  he 

perform  the  conditionj  i.  e.  provided  he  becomes  in  truth  a 

'  servant  of  God  ?' 

§  6.  In  my  Dissertations  I  have  used  the  distinction  of  a 
twofold  trust :  the  one  absolute,  by  which  a  man  held  in 
doubt  by  no  condition  believes  that  his  sins  are  actually  for- 
giveuj  and  that  he  is  accepted  by  God  unto  salvation :  the 
other  conditional,  by  which  a  man  trusts  in  the  Gospel  pro- 
mise,  that  he  shall  obtain  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  likewise 
eternal  salvation  through  Christ,  if  only  he  perform  the  con- 
dition of  obtaining  forgiveness  prescribed  in  the  Gospel.  I 
have  allowed  my  Opponent  to  take  which  of  these  two  kinds 
of  trust  he  chooses,  to  which  to  attribute  a  man's  justification  : 
assured  that  to  neither  can  a  man's  justification  be  attributed 
without  manifest  absiu'dity.  You  reject  each  of  these  kinds 
of  trust  from  justification,  and  yet  pertinaciously  maintain 
that  there  is  a  trust,  which  is  the  primary  act  of  justifying 
faith  and  as  it  were  its  formal  cause.  You  allow  that  I  have 
satisfactorily  refuted  the  opinion  of  those  who  hold  that 
justifying  faith  is  absolute  trust  of  forgiveness  of  sins  already 
obtained  ;  and  yet  you  attribute  justification  to  a  trust  dis- 
tinct  from  conditional  trust.  I  admire  your  cleverness  in 
that  you  are  the  fii'st  philosopher  who  has  found  a  mean 
between  two  contradictories.  Is  there,  I  prayyou,  any  trust, 
which  neither  depends,  nor  does  not  depend,  on  a  condi- 
tion? If  you  try  to  get  off"  by  saying  that  the  justifying 
trust,  which  you  contend  for,  is  indeed  conditional,  but 
yet  is  Avholly  diflferent  from  the  conditional  trust  I  have 
described,  it  will  be  of  no  avail.  For,  first,  you  will  never 
be  able  to  explain  to  us  any  conditional  trust  which  is  really 
a  bare  confidence,  and  Avhich  is  not  exactly  the  same  as  that 
conditional  trust  which  I  have  dcscriljed.  ^Vhatever  you 
add  to  that  description,  it  will  be  evident  that  it  is  an  act  not 
of  fiiith  or  trust,  but  of  love.  This  is  what  I  have  already 
Said  in  this  chapter  of  my  Dissertations.  "  It  is  CAident  that 
this  conditional  confidence  can  contribute  uothing  to  a  man's 
justification  and  future  happiness,  except  you  suppose  it  to 
act  upon  his  will  and  aflcctions  by  producing  some  act  of  love 


TJie  Censwei-'s  trust  different  from  either.  107 

in  the  soul,  and  by  strongly  stimulating  the  whole  man  tosTRIC. 
seek  tliose  blessings  of  the  Gospel  wliich  he  believes  both  to     ^^^^- 


l.D 


ISS.  IV. 


exist  and  to  be  attaiuable  by  him."  AVhat  I  ask  is  fair :  5  p  25 
bring  forward  some  day  a  description  of  justifying  trust,  (not 
in  metaphorical,  as  is  your  wont,  but  in  piain  tenns,)  and  I 
engage  to  submit  myself  to  you  forthwith.  Secondly,  it 
cannot  be  affirmed  that  this  conditional  trust,  whatever 
it  may  be,  or  however  you  may  desciibe  it,  is  sufficient 
of  itself  to  mau's  justification  or  salvation,  without  a  most 
e^ddeut  contradiction.  For  from  the  very  fact  that  this 
trust  depends  on  a  condition,  it  is  piain  that  it  is  of  no 
aA^ail  to  a  man^s  justification  or  salvation,  except  that  condi- 
tion be  performed,  otherwise  there  would  be  a  fallacy  in  the 
trust  itself:  e.  g.  I  trust,  resting  on  the  promise  of  the  Gospel, 
that  I  shall  obtain  forgiveness  of  sins  and  so  eternal  salvation, 
if  only  I  heartily  repent  of  my  sins,  and  devote  myself  to 
Christ  our  Lord,  and  a  holy  life  according  to  the  order  of  His 
Gospel ;  and  I  believe  that  otherwise  I  cannot  obtain  jiardon 
and  salvation.  If  now  this  trust  could  of  itself,  without  the 
Performance  of  the  condition  of  repentauce,  obtain  justifica- 
tion, there  would  plainly  be  a  fallacy  in  the  trust  by  which 
I  was  persuaded  that  I  should  obtain  forgiveuess  of  sins  on 
condition  of  repentauce,  and  not  otherwise;  consequently  a 
man  would  by  a  false  persuasion  obtain  justification  and 
salvation. 

§  7.  But  perhaps  you  will  take  refuge  in  the  opinion  of 
those  who  hold  that  the  trust  by  which  we  are  justified  is  a 
trust  (as  they  say)  "of  special  mercy :  by  which  a  man  be- 
lieves and  holds  individually,  that  our  Saviour  Jesus  Chi'ist 
has  made  most  füll  satisfaction  for  his  sins,  and  that  conse- 
quently forgiveuess  of  sins,  righteousness  and  eternal  life,  is 
offered  not  only  to  others,  but  himself  also ;  and  that  of  the 
free  gift  and  mercy  of  God  for  the  merit  of  Christ  alone.^^ 
This  is  held  in  so  many  words  by  some  of  oui*  reformed 
writers,  in  other  respects  most  learned  men.  These  writers 
teach  also,  that  this  trust  is  wliolly  difi'erent  from  that  con- 
ditional trust  which  I  have  described;  and  yet  is  not  the 
same  with  an  absolute  trust,  by  which  a  man  believes  that 
his  sins  are  actually  forgiven.  For  these  same  doctors  ex- 
pressiv define  that   "the  act  of  saving  faith,  which  is  the 


108  Proved  to  he  no  other  tlian  conditional. 

S  TR  IC.  instrumental  cause  of  justification,  is  not  a  trust  tliat  pardon 
or  forgiveness  of  sins  has  been  obtained,  but  a  trust  of  ob- 
taining  pardon/^  Could  I  judge  of  your  meauing  fi'om  so 
confused  and  perplexed  an  argumenta  I  sbould  think  that 
these  doctors  liad  exactly  and  fully  expressed  vour  opinion ; 
but  that  tbe  reader  may  escape  from  tliis  labvrinth^  we  must 
observ'e  carefully,  that  the  trust  by  which  a  man  holds  that 
forgiveness,  righteousness  and  salvatiou  is  ofFered  not  only  to 
others,  but  himself  also,  depends  either  1.  on  the  faith  of  a 
general  promise  made  in  the  Gospel,  or  2.  on  a  persuasion  of 
his  particular  and  absolute  election  to  salvation,  which  has 
been  determined  on  by  the  secret  will  and  decree  of  God, 
and  made  knoAvn  to  him  by  some  immediate  revelation.  If 
those  teachers  mean  the  former,  we  willingly  allow  that 
every  man,  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  made  known,  not  only 
can,  but  ought  to  beheve,  that  to  him  in  particular,  forgive- 
ness,  rigliteousness,  and  so  eternal  life  in  Christ  is  seriously 
offered,  and  that  he  shall  certainly  obtaiu  forgivencss,  righte- 
ousness, salvatiou,  if  he  continues  in  the  way  set  forth  in  the 
Gospel;  since  the  promise  is  to  all,  But  1.  This  trust  is 
falsely  called  one  of  '  special  merc}','  imless,  with  the  Confes- 
sion  of  Augsburg,  we  mean  by  special  mercy,  "  that  mercy 
which  is  a  special,  free,  and  uudesei-ved  favom',  and  is  opposed 
to  the  worthiuess  of  coutrition  or  other  works  either  prece- 
dent  or  consequent.'^  2.  This  trust  can  be  no  other  than 
that  conditional  trust  by  which  a  man  trusts  that  he  will 
obtaiu  forgiveness,  righteousness,  and  eternal  salvatiou  by 
and  through  Christ,  if  he  heartily  repent  of  his  sins,  and 
shall  for  the  future  obey  Christ's  precepts.  For  the  uni- 
versal promise  was  made  by  this  law :  and  therefore  no 
sinuer,  who  is  not  yet  justified,  can  by  the  force  of  the  pro- 
mise conceive  in  his  mind,  and  trust  that  he  will  obtain 
forgiveness  and  salvatiou,  other  than  that  conditional  trust 
which  I  havc  described  :  all  which  is  piain.  If,  however, 
they  mean  the  latter,  viz.  that  a  trust  of  special  mercy,  by 
which  a  man  believes  that  to  him  in  particular  forgiveness 
and  salvatiou  in  Christ  arc  offered,  rests  on  a  persuasion 
of  his  particular  and  absolute  election,  immcdiately  revealed 
to  him  by  the  Spirit,  thcn  nuist  they  fall  into  the  grossest 
absui'ditics.     For  (not  to  mcntiou  other  things)  in  the  first 


Feeling  of  election  follows  only  vponfaith,  love,  ^-c.     109 

place,  this  opinion  tiirns  Christian  faitli  into  mere  entlui-  S TR I C. 

siasm,  tlian  wliich  notliing  is  more  dangerous.    Secondly,  this — 

opinion  entirely  inverts  the  right  order,  acknowledged  and 
received  by  all  the  more  soimd  divines.  I  will  not  here  enter 
on  the  question  of  predestination,  whicli  I  could  heartily  wish 
was  for  ever  buried  in  oblivion ;  althongh  there  is  no  want  of 
leamed  divines  who  strongly  contend  that  by  the  doctrine 
of  election,  as  it  is  taught  by  many,  all  such  justification  of 
a  man  at  God's  tribnnal  as  takes  place  in  time,  is  utterly 
overtumed.  But  I  will  argue  from  what  is  granted  on  both 
sides.  All  the  sounder  divines  allow  (both  those  who  teach 
that  the  decree  of  election  is  absolute  and  irrespective,  as 
those  who  contend  that  that  decree  is  founded  in  Christ,  and 
consequently  has  reference  to  men  planted  in  Christ  by  a 
li^^ng  and  persevering  faith)  that  the  knowledge  and,  as  it 
were,  sense  of  oui'  election  (that  can  be  attaiued  in  this 
mortal  life)  follows  upon  faith,  love,  repentance,  and  so  daily 
mortification,  and  cannot  otherwise  be  realized  but  by  these 
proofs.  On  the  other  band,  according  to  this  opinion,  a 
trust  and  persuasion  of  our  election  is  held  to  be,  as  it  were, 
the  first  step  in  the  ladder  of  salvation,  and  men  not  yet 
justified,  before  any  obedience,  are  taught  to  couceive  this 
trust.  A  doctrine  so  foolish  and  absurd  that  it  is  not  worth 
being  refuted,  but  so  impious  and  dangerous  that  it  is 
worthy  of  all  hatred  and  every  anathema.  Nor  must  they 
be  heard  who  have  dared  to  assert,  as  though  to  their  re- 
proach,  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  all  the  reformed  Churches. 
It  is  clear  that  this  is  false.  For  Ist,  it  is  certain  that 
almost  all  the  Churches  whicli  follow  the  confession  of  Augs- 
burg, i.  e.  the  Liitheran,  (which  are  most  numerous,)  not 
only  do  not  admit  the  doctrine  of  absolute  and  irrespective 
election,  but  reject  it  as  wholly  fictitious,  and  consequently  it 
cannot  be,  that  according  to  the  doctrine  of  these  Churches, 
the  object  of  justifying  faith  is  held  to  be  that  special  mercy 
which  is  founded  in  absolute  election.  2ndly,  the  Augsburg 
Confession  itself,  which  among  the  reformed  Confessions  is  of 
all  the  first  and  best,  plainly  teaches  in  the  chapter  on  "faith," 
that  this  special  mercy  of  predestination  is  not  an  object  of 
faith;  for  there  the  Augsburg  divines  make  the  object  of 
faith  the  promise  of  mercy,  which  is  made  to  us  on  account 


110  Our  Church  confines  it  to  the  godly  ahne. 

STRIC.  of  "Cliiist  our  Delivererj"  wliidi  thev  plainh''  teacli  is  imi- 

■Y'TTT  * 

1—  Versal.     Their  words  are,  "As  the  preaching  of  repentance  is 

universal^  so  tlie  promise  of  grace  also  is  universal,  and  Orders 
all  to  believe  and  accept  the  goodness  of  Christ/^  Nay,  to 
shew  that  tliey  do  not  mean  this  special  mercy  of  election, 
they  expressly  add,  "  There  is  no  need  here  of  questions  on 
predestinatiou,  for  the  promise  is  universal."  3rdh^  Lastly, 
our  English  Chm'chj  Article  XVII.,  expressly  teaches  that  the 
consideration  and  pereeption  of  eternal  election  (which  she 
expressly  says  is  in  Christ)  is  attained  only  by  "  godly  persons, 
and  such  as  feel  in  themselves  the  working  of  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  mortifying  the  works  of  the  flesh  and  their  earthly 
members,  and  drawing  up  their  mind  to  high  and  heavenly 
things ;"  and  at  the  end  of  the  article  recalls  men  from  those 
Gurions  speculations  on  predestination,  (with  the  authors  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,)  and  refers  them  to  the  universal 
promise  in  these  ^vords :  "  Furthermore,  we  must  receive 
God's  promises  in  such  wise,  as  they  be  generally  set  forth 
to  US  in  Holy  Scripture;  and  in  our  doings  that  will  of  God 
is  to  be  foUowed  which  we  have  expressly  declared  unto  us 
in  the  Word  of  God :"  and  these  remarks  (as  by  the  way)  T 
thought  ought  to  be  made  as  to  the  trust  of  a  special  mercy, 
to  preclude  you  from  all  means  of  evasion.  I  now  proceed 
in  the  examination  of  what  foUows  in  this  Strictiu'e. 

§  8.  "The  proper  act  of  justifying  faith,"  you  say,  "lies 
between  that  conditional  trust,  by  which  a  man  is  persuaded 
that  he  will  be  saved  if  he  submit  himself  to  God's  condition, 
&c.,  and  the  fruit  of  faith,  viz.  obedience."  If  here  by  obe- 
dience  you  mean  the  coiu'se  and  series  of  \'isible  obeclience, 
we  allow  that  that  by  which  we  obtain  primary  justification 
(by  whatever  name  you  call  it)  is  somewhat  between  that 
conditional  trust  and  obedience  of  that  kind.  But  it  is  piain 
that  by  'obedience^  you  meant  the  promptness  for  obedience, 
or  sincere  purpose  of  obeying.  For  thus  you  speak  shortly 
after — "this  trust  begets  a  readiuess  to  obey.  Meantime 
the  root,  though  it  bear  fruits  as  occasion  demands  and  pro- 
duces  them,  must  be  distinguished  from  the  shoot  itself.  By 
the  force  of  the  promise,  '  He  that  believeth  in  Hirn,  he  that 
buildeth  on  that  stone  elect  precious,  shall  be  saved  &c.;  the 
just  shall  live  by  faith,'  although  he  die  the  nc\t  moment 


Cenmrer's  argument  from  opposites  examined.         111 

as  tlie  believing  thiefj  justifying  faith  tlierefore  is  trust  :^' STRIC. 
and  so  you  hold  tliat  there  is  a  sort  of  justifpng  trust  wliich  ^^^^' 
follows  upon  that  couditional  trust,  and  yet  precedes  all  obe- 
dience,  nay,  precedes  also  the  readiness  to  obey.  Wliat  you 
hold  is  as  daugerous  as  it  is  absurd.  The  arguments  and 
examples  or  similes^  by  which  you  try  to  prove  and  explain 
this  wonderful  assertion,  are  futile  and  frivolous ;  nay,  if  they 
be  well  weighed,  they  fight  plainly  against  you. 

§  9.  You  argue  thus :  "  Contraries  placed  side  by  side  are 
seen  more  prominently,  as  the  philosopher  hath  said  truly. 
The  corrupt  flesh  is  not  only  guilty  of  incredulity  &c.,  but 
also  labours  under  infidelity,  or  rather  distrust.  It  will  be 
clear  to  any  one  who  examines  the  matter,  that  the  fault  of 
distrust  is  an  g\A\  in  addition  to  that  of  incredulity.  Kow  on 
the  other  side  it  is  evident"  &c.  I  auswer :  Ist.  Grant  that 
distrust  is  another  e^dl  added  to  incredulity,  what  will  foUow 
thence  from  the  rule  of  opposites  ?  this  only  legitimately, 
that  trust  is  another  virtue  added  to  credulity  or  assent. 
But  what  then  ?  does  it  thence  follow  (which  was  incumbent 
on  you  to  prove)  that  there  is  a  justifying  trust,  which  lies 
between  couditional  trust  and  obedience,  or  a  readiness  to 
obey  ?  Of  com-se  uot.  2ndly.  But  it  is  false  that  distrust  (if 
you  distinguish  it  as  you  should  from  the  disobedience  of 
the  heart)  is  an  e\\\,  in  addition  to  incredulity.  Distrust  and 
incredulity  are  the  same  things,  provided  they  are  referred 
to  the  same  object,  viz.  a  Di^dne  promise.  Does  a  man  dis- 
believe  or  refuse  his  assent  to  a  Divine  promise  of  obtaining 
some  benefit?  From  the  very  fact  that  he  disbelieves  the 
Di^dne  promise,  he  distrusts  it,  nor  is  there  liere  any  differ- 
ence,  or  that  of  no  account,  between  incredulity  and  distrust. 
This  is  clear  enough  from  the  well-kno-wT!  examples,  which 
you  mention  in  passing,  of  the  Israelites,  when  they  rebelled 
in  the  wilderness,  and  the  Samaritan  lord.  These  did  not 
believe,  or  give  their  assent,  i.  e.  they  had  no  confidence  in 
the  Divine  promises  made  to  them  ;  so  that  their  incredulity 
and  distrust  were  exactly  the  same.  But  from  this  incrcdidity 
of  mind  there  followed  in  them  a  disobedience  of  heart,  which  a-niieaa. 
betrayed  itself  in  corresponding  words  and  deeds.  So  again, 
on  the  other  side,  'credence^  or  assent,  and  'trust'  are  the 
same  thing,  if  you  regard  the  same  object,  viz.  a  Divine 


112       Distinctions  between  distrust  and  unhelieffahe, 

S  T  R I  C.  promise.   I  believe,  or  I  give  my  assent,  to  tlie  Dmne  promise 

'—  of  eternal  salvation  to  be  given  me  by  and  througli  Christ, 

on  some  certain  couditions ;  i.  e.  I  trust  in  God,  promising 
me  salvation  on  these  conditions.  Who  does  not  here  see 
that  my  faitb  or  assent,  and  trust  are  exactly  the  same 
tbings,  and  no  way  to  be  distinguisbed  ?  Bat  from  this 
assent  of  the  mind,  or  trust,  (if  by  God's  grace  it  be  effica- 
cious,)  there  follows  ready  obedience  of  heart,  and  firm  deter- 
mination  of  mind,  by  which  one  determines  that  one  vrill 
submit  oneself  to  God's  condition  (as  you  speak)  in  order 
to  become  partaker  of  the  promised  benefit.  This  ready 
obedience  of  heart  is  (if  we  speak  properly)  the  efFect  of 
trust,  not  trust  itself ;  as  on  the  other  band  disobedience  of 
heart  is  the  efFect  of  distrust,  not  distrust  itself  properly  so 
called.  Hence  it  is  clear  that  between  distrust,  by  which  a 
man  disbelieves  or  distnists  the  promise  of  God  in  the  Gospel 
as  to  salvation,  to  be  given  to  him  on  certain  conditions  by 
and  on  account  of  Christ,  and  that  disobedience  of  heart  by 
which  he  determines  that  he  will  not  submit  himself  to  the 
conditions  of  the  Gospel,  but  will  go  on  in  bis  sins,  there  is 
no  middle  distrust ;  and  on  the  other  side,  between  con- 
ditional  distrust,  by  which  a  man  believes  or  trusts  in  the 
same  Divine  promise,  and  the  obedience  of  the  heart,  by 
which  a  man  seriously  applies  bis  mind  to  perform  the  con- 
ditions of  the  promise,  there  is  no  middle  trust. 

§  10.  The  similes  of  the  trust  of  a  sick  man  in  his  phy- 
sician,  and  of  a  traveUer  in  his  guide,  by  which  you  meant  to 
prove  and  explain  your  opinion,  are  wholly  foreign  from  your 
purpose.  On  the  contrary,  they  serve  most  suitably  for  the 
elucidation  of  my  doctrine.  A  traveller  believes,  i.  e.  trusts 
in  a  trust-worthy  man  who  knows  the  way,  and  offers  himself 
to  bim  as  a  guide ;  consequently,  if  he  seriously  wishes  to 
reach  the  end  of  his  journey,  he  follows  his  guide  securely  in 
the  way  unknoAvn  to  him.  Here  it  is  piain  that,  Ist,  '  to 
believe  and  trust'  a  'guide*  are  exactly  the  same  thing. 
2ndly,  that  there  is  no  middle  trust  between  that  trust  by 
which  a  traveller  believes  and  trusts  that  he  shall  arrive  at 
the  end  of  his  journey,  if  he  take  the  road  pointed  out  by  his 
guide,  and  that  purpose  of  mind  by  which  he  determines 
that  he  will  follow  the  footsteps  of  the  same.     How  this  may 


This  proved  by  familiär  examples.  113 

be  applied  to  our  purpose,  every  oue  may  see.     Likewise  tlie  s TR l  c. 

patient  believes,  i.  e.  trusts  in  bis  pbysician,  (wbom  be  knows  — ^ '— 

to  be  skilled  in  bis  art^  and  to  be  an  bonest  man,)  wbo 
promises  bim  health;  whence(if  notbing  persuade  bim  to 
tbe  contrary)  be  obeys  tbe  prescriptious  of  bis  pbysician. 
Here  again  credence  (as  you  call  it)  and  trust  are  tbe  same 
tbing;  only  it  is  not  true  tbat  trust  foUows  belief  contin- 
genth'j  wbicb  you  affirm.  Here  also  it  is  clear  enougli  tbat 
between  tbe  conditional  trust,  by  wbicb  a  sick  man  believes 
and  trusts  be  sball  recover  bis  bealtb  if  be  use  tbe  remedies 
prescribed  by  bis  pbysician,  and  tbat  purpose  of  mind  by 
wbicb  be  determines  be  will  follow  tbe  prescriptions  of  bis 
pbysician,  tbere  is  no  middle  trust.  You  affirm  absolutely 
tbat  tbe  sick  man  wbo  trusts  in  bis  pbysician  obeys  bis 
prescriptions,  wbicb  is  most  false.  He  does  not  always  obey 
wbo  trusts.  For  it  may  bappen  tbat  tbe  pbysician  tbinks 
abstinence  in  food  and  di-ink  necessar}-,  and  so  prescribes 
tbat  wbicb  tbe  sick  man,  enslaved  to  a  contrary  inveterate 
habit,  cannot  or  will  not  bear.  Or  it  is  possible  tbat  tbe 
disordered  stomacb  of  tbe  sick  man  nauseates  tbe  prescribed 
remedy,  (wbicb  otberwise  be  doubts  not  would  be  available). 
Lastly,  it  is  possible  tbat  tbe  remedy  may  be  so  severe,  and 
joined  with  so  mucb  pain,  (i.  e.  if  a  Hmb  is  to  be  cut  off, 
ne  pars  sincera  trahatur,)  tbat  a  delicate  patient,  tbough 
be  by  no  meaus  distrusts  tbe  advice  of  bis  pbysician,  would 
ratber  die  tlian  go  tbrougb  it.  Perbaps  no  instance  in 
buman  tliings  could  be  brougbt  forward,  wbicb  would  be 
more  suited  to  our  purpose.  We  are  all  ill  with  tbe  fatal 
disease  of  sin.  We  bave  a  Pbysician  sent  from  heaven,  Jesus 
Cbrist  our  Saviour.  He  promises  us  salvation,  and  tbat 
eternal,  witbout  price,  provided  we  refuse  not  to  obey  His 
most  wholesome  counsel,  and  use  tbe  remedies  prescribed  in 
tbe  Gospel.  He  wbo  believes  or  gives  bis  assent  to  Cbrist 
promising,  trusts  in  tbat  same  Cbrist,  so  tbat  jo\x  may  look 
in  vain  for  any  difference  bere  between  assent  and  trust,  or 
any  middle  trust  between  tbis  same  trust  and  tbat  firm  piu'- 
pose  by  wbicb  a  man  determines  tbat  be  will  walk  in  tbe 
way  pointed  out  by  Chnst  of  obtaining  eternal  salvation,  and 
will  continae  in  it  to  bis  life's  end.  It  is  possible  also,  and 
alas  !  is  too  oftcn  tbe  case,  tbat  be  wbo  believes  and  trusts  in 


114     Physicians  may  be  irusted,  their  remedies  refused. 

S TRI C.  Christ  promising  salvatiou^  has  not  ret  brought  himself  to 
s. :_  determine  to  walk  iu  tlie  way  pointed  out  by  Christ  of  ob- 


taining  salvation.     That  this  is  too  true  is  proclaimed  by  sad 

experience,  and  clearly  bome  -vritness  to  by  Holy  Scriptiire, 

which  expressly  relates  that  there  have  been  many  who  have 

beheved  in  Chi'ist  and  His  Gospel^  and  cousequently  have 

tmsted  in  His  promises,  which  are  no  small  part  of  the  Gospel 

Joh.  2. 23,  published  by  Hirn ;  and  yet  fear  of  danger  or  disgrace  among 

^2'  ^^'     nien  hath  kept  them  from  the  confession  of  Christ^  and  con- 

sequently  from  salvation.     The  Apostle  St.  Paul  also  niost 

■naaav        plaiuly  teaches  that  it  is  possible  for  a  man  to  have  '  all  faith/ 

ina-Tiv.       (^-iiich  without  doubt  embraees  a  most  fii'm  assent  to  the 

whole    Gospelj  and  so   a  most   sure  trust   in  the  promises 

iCor.13.2.  of   the    Gospel,)    and  yet   be  wholly  estranged  from   love, 

MaT^r^    and  cousequently  from   salvation.     To   insist   still  on  your 

21—23.      example  of  a  sick  man  putting  his  trust  in  a  physician, 

it  often  happens  that  he  who  trusts  in  Christ  the  Physieian 

of   souls^  is    averse   to   the    prescribed   means    of   spiiitual 

medicine,   as    being   most    distasteful   to   the   flesh.     Christ 

requires    us,  if  we  will   be   saved,  to   leave   off  oiu*  accus- 

tomed  habit  of  sin,  which  we  find  it  hard  to  obtain  fi'om 

ourselves.     The  palate  of  the  mind  is  ritiated,  and  no  more 

relishes  spiritual  things  than  a  sick  man  does  the  bitterest 

pill.     Lastly,   (which  is   most   difiicult  of  all,)   right  hands 

must  in  this  case  be  cut  off;  eyes  plucked  out  that  the  whole 

Mat.  5.      man  perish  not  for  ever. 

'  §  !!•  How  the  instance  of  the  believing  thief  has  reference 

to  your  proposition  I  do  not  see.     Think  you  that  that  thief 

obtained  justification  and  salvation  by  mere  trust,  without 

any  obedience,  external  or  internal,  nay,  without  any  readi- 

de  Justi£   ness  for  obedience  ?     You  err  grievously.     Hear  Davenant, 

act.  c.  30.  ^j^^  after  he  had  thoroughly  proved  the  necessity  of  good 

works  to  justification,  iu  addition  to  his  arguments  adds  this 

very  example  of  the  believing  thief  in  these  words :  "  Lastly, 

let  US   illustrate  and  support  these  arguments  by  a  well- 

known  example.     If  ever  any  justified  person  was  utterly 

without  good  works,  this  must  have  been  especially  the  case 

in  the  thief,  who  was  eonverted  in  the  last  act  of  his  life. 

But  if  we  consult  the  Evangelist  St.  Luke,  we  shall  find  that 

he  was  eminent  in  many  and  great  good  works.     As  rcgards 


No  assent  without  trust.  115 

external  works,  he  humbly  confesses  his  sin^  calls  his  com-  S  T  R I  C. 
panion  to  the  fear  of  God  aud  repentancej  aud  acknowledges  " 
Christ  hanging  on  the  Gross,  deserted  by  His  followers, 
derided  by  His  enemies,  as  the  giver  of  a  heavenly  kingdom. 
These  were  external  works,  the  best  and  brightest  he  coiild 
have  displayed  at  such  a  time.  If  we  look  to  internal  ■«orks, 
without  doubt  he  grieved  and  repented  truly  and  heartily 
of  the  crimes  of  his  jjast  life,  he  hoped  also  for  his  corapanion 
(which  was  an  instance  of  his  love)  repentance  and  salvation, 
he  believed  firmly  in  Ghrist  his  Redeemer,  and  lastly,  testified 
his  fear  and  love  towards  God." 

§  12.  You  say,  "  This  distinction  is  clear :  we  believe 
the  Word  of  trutli :  we  hope  for  what  is  promised :  and  we 
trust  in  the  Promiser  who  is  faithful  and  powerful.'^  What 
then  ?  Does  it  hence  follow  that  there  is  a  trust  which  is 
neither  absolute  trust  nor  the  conditional  trust  which  I 
have  described  ?  you  would  not  deduce  this  conclusion  from 
this  distinction  by  the  help  of  ten  inferences.  There  ai'e  some 
tliings,  however,  in  this  clear  distinction,  which  require  to  be 
noted  and  stigmatized.  First,  then,  you  have  done  wrong  in 
puttin g  trust  in  a  faithful  and  powerful  Promiser  in  the  last 
place,  when  it  ought  to  have  been  in  the  first.  For  all  the 
assent  or  trust  which  we  have  in  any  promise,  is  posterior  to 
the  trust  which  we  place  in  a  faithful  and  powerful  Promiser, 
and  depends  upon  it.  Thus  for  instance,  I  trust  in  the  pro- 
mises  of  God,  i.  e.  I  am  persuaded  that  God  will  be  true  to  the 
faith  of  His  promises,  or  will  perform  His  promises,  because 
I  trust  in  the  faithful  and  powerful  God  Himself,  or  I  am 
fully  persuaded  of  the  faithfulness  and  power  of  God.  This 
is  piain  from  the  examples  which  you  have  adduced.  Thus 
the  sick  man  trusts  in  the  promise  of  his  physician  to  restore 
him  to  health  if  he  use  the  remedies  prescribed,  because  he 
has  confidence  in  the  physician,  as  a  good  man,  and  one 
skilled  in  his  art,  &c.  In  a  matter  so  piain  we  need  not  say 
more,  and  therefore  it  is  absurd  in  you  to  a  degree  to  place 
trust  in  God  or  Christ,  as  a  faithful  and  powerful  Promiser, 
last  in  Order  as  the  perfection  of  justifying  faith.  For  who- 
ever  assents  to  the  Word  of  God  or  Christ,  trusts  in  God  or 
Christ,  as  a  faithful  and  powerful  Promiser,  since  such  an 
assent  cannot  bc  given  without  that  trust.     But  you  yourself 

I  2 


116       Trv£  hope  consequent  upon  conditions  performed. 

S  T  R I C.  allow,  and  we  have  clearlv  proved,  that  a  wicked  man,  one 

XIII.  .  "  .       .         .  .  . 
"     quite  a  stranger  to  the  state  of  justification,  may  give  this 

assent.  Secondly,  most  falsely  and  most  dangerously  you  refer 
the  hope  of  the  promise  to  jnstifying  faith,  or  to  that  trust 
which  precedes  a  man's  justifieation.  For  hope  is  nothing 
eise  than  the  expectation  of  a  fnture  good ;  and  theological 
hope  is  the  expectation  of  obtaining  a  future  good^  i.  e. 
eternal  salvation^  fi-om  God  or  Christ.  This  expectation 
depends  on  a  man's  firm  persuasion  either  that  he  will,  or 
certainly  that  he  can,  gain  eternal  salvatiou.  That  yon  did 
not  mean  here  by  "hope"  such  au  expectation  of  salvation 
as  rests  on  a  man's  persuasion  that  he  can  obtain  eternal 
salvation,  is  piain  from  hence,  \\z.  that  this  persuasion  is 
exactly  the  same  as  that  conditional  trust  which  you  reject 
as  insufficient  for  a  man's  justifieation.  Therefore  by  "  hope" 
you  must  here  mean  such  an  expectation  of  eternal  salvation 
as  arises  from  a  man's  persuasion  that  he  loill  obtain 
eternal  life ;  and  this  expectation  (as  I  have  observed  in  \m 
Dissertations)  is  more  properly  called  "hope"  in  Holy  Scrip- 
tures.  But  this  hope  or  expectation  follows  upon  our  Per- 
formance of  the  condition  required  for  justifieation,  and  con- 
sequently  upon  our  justifieation  itself.  For  with  what  right 
can  auy  one  expect  eternal  salvation,  if  he  has  not  yet  per- 
formed the  things  requii'cd  for  justifieation,  (without  which 
there  can  be  no  salvation)  ?  You  see  now,  I  hope,  the  errors 
and  illusions  there  are  in  this  distinction,  which  you  call 
"  clear."  Nevertheless,  to  make  the  matter  still  more  clear, 
I  will  here  set  forth  the  true  and  most  clear  distinction 
between  the  various  acts  of  Christian  faith,  trust,  and  hope. 
The  Order  is  this  :  First,  we  believe  that  our  Lord  Jesus  is  the 
Joh.  9.  35;  Christ,  and  the  most  true  and  mighty  Son  of  God.  Hence 
Actrs.s";  ^^  believe  the  whole  of  His  Gospel,  and  trust  most  especially 
iJoh.4.15;  in  His  promises,  Next  (if  this  faith  and  trust  be  made 
efficacious  in  us  by  God's  grace)  we  scriously  apply  our 
minds  to  perform  the  condition  of  these  promises,  viz.  by 
repenting  of  our  sins,  by  conceiving  a  firm  purpose  of  obe- 
dicnce,  and  by  devoting  ourselves  to  Christ  our  King. 
Lastly,  by  performing  the  condition,  we  hope  for  the  thing 
promised  :  which  hope  is  more  or  less  perfect  in  proportion 
to,  and  according  to  the  measurc  of,  our  obedieucc,  or  as  it 


Trust  the  privilege  only  of  the  righteous.  117 

is  more  or  less  clear  to  us  that  we  have  performed  the  con-  s  T  R  i  c. 
dition.  Here  eveiy  thing  is  clear.  Shall  I  also  illustrate 
and  Support  this  by  the  example  Avhich  you  have  adduced  ? 
A  sick  man  is  persuaded  that  his  physician  is  a  good  man 
and  skilled  in  his  art.  Hence  he  trusts  in  his  promise  of 
restoiing  him  to  health^  if  he  obey  his  prescriptions.  Then 
(if,  as  befits  a  wise  man,  he  consults  his  own  health)  he  sub- 
mits  himself  to  the  prescriptions  of  his  physician,  determining 
to  try  all  remedies^  however  disagreeablc,  in  order  to  get  rid 
of  his  disease.  Lastly,  by  obeying  the  prescriptions^  he  has 
a  good  hope  of  recovering  his  health.  But  a  sick  man  would 
be  a  fool  and  a  madman  (and  therefore  only  fit  to  set  sail  for 
Anticyra)  who  expected  to  be  made  well  by  a  physician 
while  refusing  to  take  his  advice  and  use  the  prescribed 
remedies.  Tliis^  in  fact,  is  your  great  mistake^  the  soui'ce  of 
all  your  en'ors,  that  you  have  not  accurately  distinguished 
between  the  hope  of  a  promised  blessing,  which  is  consequent 
on  a  Christian^s  Performance  of  his  duty,  and  the  trust  in  a 
promise,  which  precedes  justification  indeed,  but  is  not  of 
itself  sufficient  to  obtain  it. 

§  13.  The  exhortations  to  tinist  that  meet  one  in  every 
page  of  Scripture,  the  very  great  promises  annexed  to  these 
precepts,  lastly,  the  splendid  examples  of  the  same,  which 
you  adduce,  neither  help  your  cause  at  all,  nor  injure  mine. 
For  the  passages  in  which  these  precepts,  promises,  examples, 
occur,  besides  that  they  generally  refer  to  advantages  of 
this  life,  speak  most  plainly  of  the  trust  of  a  righteous  man ; 
and  that,  too,  resting  on  the  goodness  and  power  of  God  in 
the  way  of  righteousness.  But  that  it  is  the  privilege  of  a 
righteous  man  that  he  may,  his  duty  that  he  should  trust 
securely,  in  his  greatest  affliction,  in  Almighty  God,  and 
"commit  the  keeping  of  his  soul  to  Him  in  well-doing," 
1  Pet.  iv.  19.  (with  which  must  be  compared  Ps.  xxxaü.  3, 
which  is  at  the  head  of  your  quotations) ;  that  it  is  to  this  trust 
of  a  righteous  man  that  the  greatest  promises  in  Scripture  are 
annexed,  that  it  is  of  this  same  trust  that  we  find  the  splendid 
examples  in  Scripture,  no  one  can  doubt.  But  this  wretched 
reasoning,  displayed  so  often  in  your  Strictures,  compels  me 
to  ask  again,  What  then  ?  For  I  see  no  inference  to  be  drawTi 
hence,  which  at  all  favours  your  absurd  liypothesis.     Let  rae 


118  Futility  of  the  Censurer's  reasoning. 

s  T  R I C.  remind  you,  then^  again^  my  dear  Sir^  tliat  it  is  incumbent 
^^^^-  on  you  to  prove  one  or  other  of  tliese  two  things  :  either, 
Ist,  that  a  sinner,  one  not  yet  justified,  lias  any  rigtit  to  con- 
ceive  in  liis  mind  a  trust  that  lie  will  obtain  eternal  salvation, 
otlier  tlian  that  conditional  trust  which  I  have  so  often  de- 
scribed;  or,  2ndly,  that  this  conditional  trust  is  of  itself 
snfficient  to  the  justification  of  a  sinner.  The  latter  you 
deny;  the  former  you  will  never  prove.  Certainly,  those 
precepts,  promises,  examples  of  Scripture,  as  they  have  been 
adduced  by  you,  are  nothing  to  the  purpose. 

§  14.  I  come  now  to  your  Achillean  argument.  You  say : 
"  I  will  add  one  other  argument  only,  the  strength  of  which 
I  would  have  you  try ;  it  is  taken  from  the  law  of  contraries. 
\Mien  a  man  is  forbidden  or  found  fault  witli,^^  &c.  But 
whoever  examines  this  argument  also,  of  the  strength  of 
which  you  boast  so  much,  will  pronounce  it  at  once  to  be 
downright  touchwood.  !For,  in  the  first  place,  with  all  your 
attempts  you  effect  nothing,  tiying  to  prove  from  many 
passages  of  Scripture  that,  as  often  as  a  man  is  forbidden  to 
trust  in  any  thing  eise  than  God,  what  is  blamed  in  him  is 
trusting.  For,  wlio  in  his  senses  will  deny  that  (fidere)  '  to 
trust,'  means  {fiduciam)  'trusting?'  2ndly.  Your  Observa- 
tion, that  a  man  is  not  rightly  said  auro  &c.  credere,  is  siUy 
enough :  for  credere  means  sometimes  the  same  as  confidere. 


Thus  Virgil 


And  Ovid 


Ninüum  ne  crede  colori. 


Moribus  et  vitas  crcdiclit  ille  niese." 


And  you  find  examples  of  this  continually  in  good  authors. 
Srdly.  When  you  say,  "with  equal  reason  'faith  in  God'  is 
properly  trust,^'  you  do  not  rightly  state  your  parity  of 
reason,  which  should  rather  have  stood  thus :  When  a  man  is 
forbidden  to  trust  in  himself,  &c.  what  is  blamed  in  him,  is 
trust :  with  equal  reason,  when  a  man  is  enjoined  to  trust  in 
God  or  Christ,  'what  is  enjoined  him,'  is  in  like  manner 
trust.  Not  all  faith  in  God  or  Christ  is  trust :  but  that  faith 
only,  which  looks  to  God  as  a  Promiser.  But  what  you  elicit 
hence,  that  has  even  a  show  of  argument  to  support  your 
liypothesis,  I  cannot  divine. 


Hebraic  use  of  credere  alicui'  and  'in  aliquem.'       119 

§  15.  Exceptj  indeed,  you  meant  that  by  the  phrase  {credere  s  T  R I C. 
in  Deum  sive  Christum),  '  to  believe  in  God  or  Christ/  some  — — '— 
peculiar  trust  is  denoted  in  Scripture^  which  none  but  they 
who  believe  unto  justification  and  salvation  have.     In  this 
sense,  indeed^  you  speak  at  the  beginning  of  your  longer 
Stricture  above  cited;   where  you   say  in  so  many  words, 
that  "  the  Scripture  expresses  the  proper  idea  of  saving  faith 
as  well  as  the  j)eculiar  act,  by  '  belieAing  in  or  on  God^  or 
Christ/  (to  Tnareveiv  et?  or  ein  top  Qeov  or  Xpiarbv,)  '  and  ou 
or  in  the  name  of  the  Lord/  {iirl  or  et?  ovo/xa  and  iv  ovo/juaTt 
Kvpiov").     But  this  eriticism  of  yours  neither  has  any  thing 
in    it,  nor  is   it  true,   since  it  is  certain  that  TTtareveiv  et? 
Xpiarov  is  said  in  the  Scriptures  of  those  who  had  not  yet 
believed  unto  justification  and  salvation.     See  the  plainest 
passages,    John   ii.    23,    24,   and    xii.  42,   43.     The   phrase 
TTca-Teveiv  eh  riva,  occurs  no  where  (that  I  know)  among  pro- 
fane Greek  writers,  but  is  an  idiom  of  the  Hebrew  language, 
which  was  imitated  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament. 
But  it   must   be   observed   that   there   are  two   phrases  in 
Hebrew,  credere  alicui  and  credere  in  aliquem ;   Avhere  dis- 
tinction  is  rather  of  words  than  of  things.     Thus  urh  \'^^rr^, 
non  credidit  eis,  "  he  believed  them  iiot/^  Gen.  xlv.  26.    n^-dk 
innNH  nxn  hph  p'-ösni  ■j'?  ij'-dks  si  non  crediderint  tibi,  ut  cre- 
dent  voci  signi  posterioris,  "  if  they  •oill  not   beheve  thee, 
they  will  believe  the  voice  of  the  latter  sign,"  Exod.  iv.  8. 
1^  Dn^DXn  N^PI,   et   non   credidistis  fysi,    "je   believed    Him 
not/'  Deut.  ix.  23.     nay  ni^'021  ninn  lyöNn;  et  crediderunt  in 
Dominum  et  in  Mosen  Ejus  servum,  "  they  believed  the  Lord 
and  His  servant  Moses,''  Exod.  xiv.  31.     iros'»  in-D31,  etiam 
in  te  credent,  "  and  believe  thee,"  Exod.  xix.  9.     Erom  these 
examples  it  is  evident  that  the  phrases  credere  alicui  and 
credere   in    aliquem   were   used    promiscuously   in    Hebrew 
of   God   as   of  His   creatures.     Nay,  so  far  is   the  phrase 
credere  in  Deum  fi'om  signifying  of  itself  justifying  trust, 
that  at  times  it  does  not  signify  trust  at  all.     Thus  of  the 
Ninevites,  who  believed  Jonah  denouncing  the  destruction 
of  their  city  in  God's  name,  it  is  said  D''n'?S2  nirj  t:n  13''DS"'1, 
et   crediderunt  viri   Nineve    in   Deum,   "  So    the   people   of 
Nineveh  believed  God,"  Jon.  iii.  5,  where  it  is  piain  that 
by   credere    in   Deum,   trust   is    not    siguified.      Eor    trust 


120  St.  Augustine' s  explanation  of  such  phrases. 

S  T  R  I C.  alwars  reffarcls  some  promise ;  whereas  in  this  passage  the 

VTTT  *.  r  .. 

— : 1_  assent  is  expressed  wliicli  the  Xinevites  gave  to  God's  threat- 

eniüg,  preaclied  by  Jonah  concerning  the  destruction  of  their 
city.  It  has  not  escaped  nie  that  St.  Austin  somewhere  has 
nicely  (as  is  his  wont)  distiuguished  between  these  three,  a'e- 
dere  Deo,  credere  Deum,  and  credere  in  Deum.  But  to  this 
distinction  that  great  Father  applies  a  Cathohc  and  sound 
sense;  and  if  you  admit  this  sense,  further  question  with 
you  on  the  subject  will  be  ended.  For  with  St.  Austin 
credere  in  Deum  is  nothing  eise  than  amare  Deum,  '  to  love 

Tractat.29.  God.^     He  says,  "No7i  continuo  qui  credit  Deo,  credit  in  Deum; 

rvoMii"p  ^'^"^  ^^  damones  credebant  ei,  et  non  credebant  in  emn"    Agaiu, 

515.]  we  can  say  of  His  Apostles,  credimus  Paulo,  but  not  credinius 
in  Paidum ;  and  he  subjoins,  "What,  theu,  is  to  believe  in 
God,  {credere  in  Deum  ?)  To  love  Hirn  by  believing,  to  choose 
Hirn  by  believing,  to  go  to  Hirn  by  believing,  and  to  be 
iucorpovated  amoiig  His  members.^'  Lastly,  explaining  the 
faitli  by  which  we  believe  in  God,  he  says,  "  It  is  not  faith  of 
any  sort,  but  that  which  worketh  by  love."  There  are  some 
like  thiugs  in  St.  Austin  in  Exposit.  Psalm  Ixxvii.  and  Serm. 
vi.  of  the  words  of  our  Lord ;  and  Psalm  cxxx.,  "  This  is  '  to 
believe  in  Christ,'  \\z.  to  love  Him." 

§  16.  Thus,  at  length,  I  have  refnted  your  long  Strictiu'e 
in  as  long  an  answer.  From  all  which,  sensible  readers  may 
easily  jxidge  how  false  your  conclusion  is  that  "faith  taken 
in  this  sense,  (i.  e,  as  simple  trust,)  is  most  plainly  taught  by 
Christ  and  His  Apostles  to  be  the  condition  (\äz.  the  one 
condition)  of  justification."  From  what  has  been  said  it  will 
also  be  abundantly  clear  what  empty  boastings  are  in  the  words 
with  which  you  eud  the  discussion,  as  though  you  were  leading 
a  triumph.  "  You  see,  then,  it  is  not  so  hopeless  a  task  to  con- 
ceive  and  explain  the  idea  of  a  reliance  or  trust  in  God,  (which, 
forsooth,  of  itself  and  before  any  obedience  justifies  us)."  I 
should  say  with  more  truth  :  See  how  vain  is  the  attempt  of 
those  who  try  to  explain  to  us  any  trust,  properly  so  called, 
which  necessarilycarrieswithit  the  saviugcfiect  of  justificatiou. 
§  17.  By  way  of  finish  I  will  put  some  couclusions  before 
the  reader,  which  (in  my  judgment)  clearly  and  succinctly 
comprise  the  true  doctrinc  of  Christian  faith  and  trust. 
Conclusion  first :    Christian  faith  and  trust,  properly  spcak- 


Faith  and  trust  differ  as  gener al  and  particular.       121 

ing,  differ  only  as  general  and  particular ;    so  tliat  faith  is  s  T  R  i  c. 
assent  to  the  wliole  Gospel,  iu  its  utmost  exteut,  while  trust     -^^^^^ 
is  tliat  assent  as  it  regards  tlie  promises  made  in  the  Gospel, 
I  have  proved  this  conclusion  above,  wliich  is  also  of  itself  §  9,  lo. 
sufRciently  evident.     Trust  does   not  refer   to    every  tliing 
wliicli  is  delivered  in  the  Gospel,   (for  we  are  not  properly 
Said  to  trust  in  threats  or  in  narrations  of  past  events,  &c.,) 
but  to  those  blessings  only  whicli  are  promised  by  God  in 
the    Gospel.     But  the  faith    of  the  Gospel  is   exercised  in 
threats  and  other  assertions,  either  as  regards  the  future, 
present,  or  past,  even  such  as  in  no  way  concern  us,  no  less 
than  in  promises. 

§  18.  Conclusion  second :  Since  Christian  trust  regards  the 
promises  of  God  in  the  Gospel,  and  these  promises  set  before 
US  very  great  and  most  desirable  blessings,  to  be  obtained  by 
man  on  certaiu  conditions ;  and  consequently  it  is  not  possible 
for  any  oue  to  give  his  assent  to  the  Gospel  promises,  i.  e. 
trust  in  them,  unless  he  have  some  proportionnble  desire  of 
such  promised  blessings ;  hence  Christian  trust  (taken  in  the 
wider  sense  of  the  word  trust)  is  sometimes  defined, — Assent 
to  the  Gospel  promises,  joined  with  the  desire  of  the  pro- 
mised blessings.  This  definition  of  'trust'  continually 
occurs  in  the  writings  of  the  divines  who  are  accustomed 
to  treat  theological  matters  more  accurately.  Among  others 
see  the  learned  Robert  Baron,  who  treating  of  the  question,  phiios. 
"  AVhether  trust  is  an  act  of  the  iutellect,^'  &c.  says  thus :  T^^?]; 

'  •'  Ancill. 

"An  act  of  each  kind  (viz.  botli  the  assent  of  the  intellect  Exerdt. 3. 
and  the  desire  of  the  will)  is  required  for  trust.     For  no  one  Artic.^ia 
can  be  said  to  trust  or  be  confident  of  obtainiug  any  blessing,  "•  3. 
except  he  have  a  firm  persuasion  in  the  mind,  and  a  desii'e 
or  love  of  that  blessing  in  the  will."     This  is  excellently  ex- 
plained  by  Tilenus,  saying,  that  "di^ine  truth  is  an  object  of  Syntagm. 
faith,  not  only  as  it  relates  any  thing,  but  especially  as  it  ^^^^  '•  _ 
promises  any  thing :  where  it  is  not  sufficient  to  assent  to  Thes.  18. 
the  narration  as  true,  but  one  must  also  either  embrace  or 
reject  the   thing   offered,  which    especially  belongs   to    the 
will."     Nevertheless  the  same  learned  man*^  holds  that  trust 
is  formally  situated  in  the  intellect.     For  he  subjoins  imme- 
diately,  "The  former  act  is  the  essence,  or  formal  cause  of 

"^  [i.  e.  R.  Baion.] 


122  Trust  may  exist  without  earnest  desire. 

S  T  R I C.  trust ;  tlie  latter  is  only  tlie  act  annexed  to  or  accompanying 
— ^ '—  it :  and  consequently  trust  is,  formallv  speaking,  in  the  in- 


tellect,  though  it  liave  the  desire  of  the  will  annexed  to  it. 
This  assertion  is  proved,  in  the  first  place,  because  the  oppo- 
site  of  trust,  viz.  distrust,  is  in  the  intellect ;  therefore  trust 
itself  is  in  the  intellect.  The  ground  of  the  premiss  is,  that 
distrust,  by  which  a  man  is  said  to  distrust  himself  and  his 
affaii's,  does  not  signify  hatred,  or  an  aversion  of  the  will,  but 
either  a  doubt  as  to  his  own  powers,  or  a  persuasion  of  his 
own  weakness,  which  without  doubt  belongs  to  the  intellect. 
In  the  second  place,  because  if  trust  were  formally  an  act  of 
the  will,  it  would  be  nothiug  eise  than  a  desh'e  or  love  of  the 
object.  But  this  is  contrary  to  daily  experience :  for  many 
ardenth'  seek  for  and  desire  an  object,  who  have  no  confi- 
dence  of  obtaining  it.''  V\q  have  this  granted  by  that  learned 
man,  who  in  other  respects  is  but  too  favourable  to  your  hy- 
pothesis.  But  with  these  things  allowed  on  both  sides,  let 
US  proceed  farther. 

§  19.  Conclusion  third:  Each  act  of  trust  taken  in  its  wider 
sense,  viz.  both  assent  to  the  promises  of  the  Gospel,  and  the 
desii-e  of  the  promised  blessings,  is  compatible  with  the  case 
of  a  man  who  has  not  yet  arrived  at  a  state  of  grace  and  salva- 
tion.  This  conclusion  is  proved  fi'om  the  two  former.  Who- 
ever  gives  his  assent  to  the  whole  Gospel,  (which  I  have  above 
shewn,  and  you  yourself  allow  cau  be  done  by  a  man  as  yet 
carnal  and  unregenerate,)  by  that  act  assents  or  trusts  in  the 
promises  contained  in  the  Gospel.  But  from  this  assent,  or 
trust,  necessarily  flows  a  proportionable  desire  of  the  promised 
blessings  :  as  I  have  shewn  in  the  explanation  of  the  second 
conclusion.  But  what  need  is  there  of  our  reasonings  ? 
TiTith  itself  teaches  that  there  are  many  who  seek  to  enter 

Lu.  13.24.  the  gate  of  salvation,  but  will  not  be  able;  where  the  'seek- 

rh  CyiTüv.  ing'  comprises  two  things  at  least :  1.  a  trust  or  persuasion 
that  eternal  salvation  has  been  procured  by  Christ,  and  that 
it  is  really  offered  to  us  in  Chi'ist :  2.  the  desire  of  ob- 
taining happinessj  nay,  the  word  denotes  some  sort  of  at- 
tcmpt  to  obtain  it.     Yet  these  seekers  will  fail  in  attaining 

ayu-vl-  the  desired  happiness,  because  they  '  strive  not,'  which  word 
implies  a  great  and  constant  stiiiggle  of  mind.     They  seek 

Mat.  6. 33.  the  kiugdom  of  God,  but  not  as  the  first  thing ;  they  ai"e 


Does  not  avail  to  salvation  without  it.  123 

desirous  of  immortalitV;  but  it  is  not  prized  by  tbem  enougb  s  T  R I C. 
to  raake  tliem  willing  to  give  up  this  world^s  advantages.  ^IH. 

§  20.  Conclusion  fourth :  Therefore  that  trust  only  in  the 
promises  of  the  Gospel  or  in  Christ  the  Promiser,  places  a 
man  according  to  the  Gospel  covenant,  in  a  state  of  grace  and 
salvation,  whicli  has  annexed  to  and  joined  with  it  a  desire, 
not  of  any  kind,  but  a  strong  and  ardent  desire,  for  the  very 
great  blessings  promised  by  Christ  in  the  Gospel;  a  desire 
which  goes  beyond  all  his  other  desires,  and  which,  being 
■uell  thought  over,  and  after  every  thing  has  been  duly 
weighed,  begets  in  him  a  determination  to  do  or  suffer  any 
thing,  so  that  he  may  at  length  obtain  the  promised  blessings. 
Thetruth  of  this  conclusion  is  clearly  proved  from  the  former: 
and  is  more  fully  confirmed  by  remarkable  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture,  worthy  of  every  consideration,  ]Matt.  x.  37,  38,  Luke  xiv. 
25 — 33,  inclusive.  But  this  tnist,  which  has  annexed  to  it 
this  strong  and  ardent  desire,  is  without  doubt  ^faith  per- 
fected  by  love,'  to  which  St.  Paul  attributes  justification,  and  Gal.  5.  6. 
to  which  no  Christian  will  deny  it.  Here,  then,  you  have  the 
true  doctrine  of  Christian  trust  most  clearly  explained. 

STRICTURE  XIV. 

OX  I.  DISS.  V.  p.  28. 

In  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  occurs  the  fourth  argu- 
ment,  by  which  I  endeavour  to  establish  St.  James's  State- 
ment concerning  the  necessity  of  good  works  to  justification. 
The  chapter  begins  thus  :  ''  Let  us  take  our  fourth  argument 
from  the  manner  in  which  God  will  judge  niankind  at  the 
last  day.  By  whatever  rule  eveiy  one  shall  be  judged  in  the 
next  World  by  God,  according  to  the  same  he  is  justified  by 
Him  in  this.  But  in  the  next  world  every  one  will  be  judged 
according  to  his  works,  (and  not  by  faith  alone).  Therefore, 
in  this  World  every  one  is  justified  by  God  by  his  works,  (and 
not  by  faith  '  alone  ^).  If  I  am  not  very  much  mistaken,  this 
argument  is  unanswerable.^'  You  meet  this  argument  by  a 
threefold  objection.  Ist.  "I  wonder,"  you  say,  "that  this 
argument  seems  to  you  to  be  unanswerable,  for  this  is  a 
weakly  suj^port  of  a  bad  cause.  Nothing  is  more  certain, 
than  that  Christiaus  are  justified  by  God  in  this  life  by  faith, 


124  Justification  by  works  incontrovertible. 

STRIC.  and  are  placed  in  a  state  of  righteousness  according  to  God's 
■  • —  appointment,  b}^  being  made  partakers  of  Clirist's  satisfaction, 

1  Cor.  i.  30,  &c.;  and  that  faith  alone,  without  works,  is  im- 
Rom.  4.  puted  to  Abrabam  and  bis  childrenfor  rigbteousness,  But  it 
^'  is  not  so  clear  from  the  parabobc  discourses  of  oiir  Lord  as  to 

tbe  last  judgment,  wbat  will  be  His  proceedings  in  examining 
and  passing  sentence.  But  we  will  grant  tbat  Christ  will 
render  to  eacb  of  us  according  to  bis  works ;  but  it  by  no 
naeans  follows  bence  tbat  God  will  acquit  tbe  faitbful  in  His 
sigbt  from  tbe  guilt  of  sin  on  account  of  bis  works,  God 
does  not  contradict  Himself.'^  2ndly,  you  next  cavil  against 
my  words,  '  according  to  tbe  same'  (rule),  eodem  plane  modo  ; 
you  say,  '^If  'according  to  tbe  same^  (i'ule),  tben  botb  in  tbe 
minor  premiss  and  also  in  tbe  conclusion  tbe  words  enclosed 
in  parentbesis  ougbt  to  be  absgue  fide,  '  witbout  faitb/  and 
not  as  is  bere  substituted  witb  a  fallacy,  non  fide  sola,  '  not 
by  faitb  alone/  wbence  it  would  follow  tbat  we  are  bere 
justified  by  works  alone  witbout  faitb  j  wbicb  tbe  autbor 
bimself  will  not  deny  is  most  false,  Tbis  argumeut,  tbere- 
fore,  is  good  for  notbing,  instead  of  being  unauswerable/' 
Srdly,  and  lastly,  you  end  tbe  page  tbus :  "  Justification  is 
various,  according  to  tbe  variety  of  tbe  question;  if  a  man  is 
called  to  trial  as  to  bis  innocence,  wbetber  be  be  guilty  or 
innocent,  tbe  wbole  world  is  guilty  of  sin,  and  no  one  is 
justified  by  works;  he  who  denies  tbis,  makes  God  a  liar. 
If  a  man  be  questioned  as  to  his  Performance  of  the  Gospel 
conditions,  be  must  be  approved  by  works.  Do  you  not  pcr- 
ceive  tbe  variability  of  tbe  major  premiss  by  reason  of  the 
ambiguity  of  terms  ?" 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XIV. 

§1.1  am  not  prcvented  by  yom'  Stricture  from  still  affirming 
confidently  tbat  tbis  fourth  argument  is  uuanswerable.  The 
major  premiss,  (if  by  tbe  words  quomodo  and  eodem  modo,  'by 
whatcver  rule,  and  by  the  same  rule^  you  understand  that  a 
man  is  justified  in  tbis  life,  and  judged  or  declared  just  in  tbe 
World  to  come  on  the  same  conditions,  wbicb  tbe  sensible  and 
candid  reader  will  at  once  acknowledge  is  all  tbat  I  meant,)  is 
one  of  piain  truth.     The  minor  premiss  (if  it  be  takcn  in  the 


No  dental  ofit  without  denial  of  Scripture.  125 

case  of  grown  up  persons,  to  whoni  alone  any  man  in  his  STRIC. 
senses  will  see  at  once  that  tliis  controversy  has  reference)  -^^^- 
is  as  certain  as  anv  proposition  in  divinity.  However,  if  the 
reader  has  doubts  as  to  eitlier,  he  will  find  the  proof  of  either 
proposition  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  first  Dissertation. 
Wliat  yoii  have  said  on  this  head,  is  really  more  trifling  than 
I  can  express. 

§  2.  To  the  first  part  of  your  Stricture  I  answer : — Istly. 
How  we  are  niade  partakers  of  the  righteousness  and  satis- 
faction  of  Christ,  and  by  what  law  and  under  what  condition, 
I  have  shewn  above  fully  and  satisfactorily.  And  in  what 
sense  St.  Paul  said  that  the  faith  of  Abraham  was  iraputed  to 
him  without  works,  I  have  explained  at  length,  II.  Diss.  xii. 
14 — 27,  (p.  150,  &c.)  All  this,  however,  when  you  came  to 
this  chapter,  you  passed  over  in  silence,  leaving  the  margin 
of  my  book  almost  free,  and  defaced  with  as  few  of  your 
remarks  as  possible ;  and  yet,  nevertheless,  (such  is  your 
candour  and  sincerity  in  discussion,)  you  are  perpetuaUy 
repeating  this  charge  on  the  subject  of  Abraham.  2ndly. 
You  prove  yonrself  how  great  the  force  of  my  argument  is, 
(however,  to  all  appearance,  you  may  seem  to  despise  it  as 
good  for  nothing,)  because^  to  avoid  the  weight  of  it,  you 
have  füund  it  necessary  to  call  in  question  an  article  of  the 
Christian  faith  of  the  greatest  moment.  You  say,  "  It  is  not 
so  clear  from  the  parabolic  discourses  of  our  Lord  as  to  the 
last  judgment,  what  will  be  His  proceedings  in  examining 
and  passing  sentence."  Is  it  so,  indeed  ?  Is  it  not  clear 
from  our  Lord's  words,  Matt,  xxv.,  that  He  will  judge  every 
one  according  to  his  works  ?  What  is  there,  then,  which  one 
may  hope  can  be  made  clear  to  you  ?  The  discourse,  you 
say,  is  parabolical :  I  allow  it,  and  on  that  account  I  agree 
that  every  thing  in  that  discourse  is  not  (as  they  say)  argu- 
mentative. But  no  di\äne  ever  denied  that  a  solid  argument 
could  be  deduced  from  the  piain  driffc  of  the  parable.  Is  it 
not  clearly  and  expressly  asserted,  not  only  in  this  parable  of 
our  Lord,  but  almost  every  where  in  Scriptui'e  in  piain  words, 
that  all  men  will  be  judged  in  the  last  judgment  according 
to  their  works  ?  3rdly.  But  we  are  much  indcbtcd  to  you 
that  Ave  have  at  length  your  leave  to  agi*ee  with  Scripture 
and  the  rule  of  faith,  and  say  that  Christ  in  the  world  to 


126  Gross  heterodoxy  of  the  Censurer. 

s  T  R I C.  come  will  iudge  men  according  to  their  works.     "We  will 

"VTV 

— 1 '- —  grant/'   you  say,   "  that    Christ  will   reuder  to  each  of  us 

according  to  his  works/^  Well.  What  is  it^  theu,  my  Cen- 
surer^  that  you  will  not  grant  us  ?  You  say,  "  But  it  by  no 
means  follows  hence  that  God  will  acquit  the  faithful  in  His 
sight  of  the  guüt  of  sin  on  account  of  his  works."  K  in  the 
words  '  on  account  of  his  works/  you  mean  the  meritorious 
cause,  nay,  any  cause  at  all  properly  so  called,  you  must  seek 
some  other  combatant  to  defend  such  an  expeiience  :  I  cer- 
tainly  shrink  most  fearfully  from  it,  and  (God  be  praised) 
ever  have  shrunk  from  it.  What  I  maintain  is,  that  Christ 
in  the  worid  to  come  will  acquit  no  one  by  His  merciful 
senteuce  of  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  give  him  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  otherwise  than  on  the  condition  of  good  works  : 
whence  I  infer,  that  no  one  in  this  life  by  the  gracious  law 
of  Christ  acquires  a  right  to  the  pardon  of  his  sins  and 
eternal  salvation,  otherwise  than  on  the  same  condition.  In 
vain  will  you  use  all  the  efforts  and  engines  of  your  skill  to 
overthrow  this  conclusiou. 

§  3,  I  go  on  to  the  second  part  of  your  Stricture.  "  If 
according  to  the  same  law,  then  both  in  the  minor  premiss 
and  also  in  the  conclusion,  the  words  enclosed  in  parentheses 
ought  to  be  absque  fide,  '  without  faith,'  and  not,  as  is  here 
substituted  with  a  fallacy,  ('  not  by  faith  alone,^)  whence  it 
would  follow  that  we  are  here  justified  by  works  alone  with- 
out faith.^'  Who  does  not  wonder  at  the  shai'pness  of  our 
Aristarchus  ?  or  rather,  (to  treat  a  serious  matter  seriously,) 
who  does  not  think  this  grossest  heterodoxy  of  my  Censurer 
deserves  censure  ?  He  ai'gues  thus :  If  we  are  justified  in  this 
life  in  the  same  way  in  which  we  shall  be  judged  in  the 
World  to  come,  then  we  are  justified  in  this  life  by  works 
alone  without  faith.  The  ground  of  the  conclusion  is  that 
(according  to  the  opinion  of  my  Censurer)  in  the  world  to  come 
we  shall  be  judged  by  works  alone  without  faith.  But  Arbo 
in  his  senses  or  what  Catholic  has  taught  so  before  himself  ? 
Not  one,  I  am  sure  !  There  are  some  Roman  Catholic  writers 
who  do  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  "in  the  last  judgment 
retribution  will  be  given  according  to  works  and  not  accord- 

On  the      ing  to  faith ;"    but  they  are  carefully  refuted  by  our  great 

30*^^3588  Jäckson.     In  truth,  faith  and  works  are  not  to  be  separated 

&c. 


Good  works  raore  than  mere  signs  offaith.  127 

in  this  matter :  but  rather  must  Ave  hold  that  in  the  last  s  T  R  i  c. 
juclgment  the  final  acquittal  and  reward  Tvill  be  adjudged  ^^^- 
(according  to  the  gracious  law  of  Christ  and  on  account  of 
Hirn)  both  to  our  faith  and  works,  or  to  our  faith  which 
worketh ;  i.  e.  (to  use  St.  Paul's  expression,)  faith  perfected  Si'  a-yäTr-ns 
by  love,  or  (again  to  nse  St.  Paul's  expression  2  Thess.  i.  8.)  ^^p°^' 
obedience  done  to  the  Gospel,  which  both  embraces  the  faith 
of  the  Gospel;  and  all  those  things  which  usually  do  and 
ouglit  to  follow  faith.  But  perhaps  you  meant  by  this  asser- 
tion  that  all  that  is  done  in  the  last  judgment  is,  that  it  is 
shewn  and  made  manifest  to  the  whole  world  who  have  em- 
braced  Christ  and  His  righteousness  with  a  true  faith,  and 
who  not :  which  can  be  declared  by  works  alone,  (since  faith 
is  the  very  thing  in  question);  fi'om  which  it  would  follow  that 
it  is  right  to  say  that  men  will  be  judged  in  the  world  to 
come  by  works  alone.  If  this  be  your  mind  and  your  doc- 
trine,  (which  I  can  easily  belicTe,)  theu  you  fall  into  the  folly 
of  those  who  assert  that  good  works  are  'sdewed  only  in  the 
matter  of  salvation  as  signs  of  faith.  That  doctrine  I  have 
already  refuted  in  this  same  chapter  of  the  Harmony,  where 
it  is  treated  of,  by  two  most  powerful  arguments :  the  first 
argument  I  borrowed  from  the  famous  Gerard  Vossius,  (whom 
no  one  in  his  senses,  no  orthodox  person  ever  suspected  of 
heterodoxy  on  this  point,)  who  concludes  from  the  well- 
known  passages,  Matt.  xxv.  21,  23,  34,  35;  Eev.  \ü.  14,  15; 
2  Cor.  iv.  17;  Gal.  y\.  8;  Phil.  ii.  12,  that  "they  do  not  say 
enough,  who  think  that  the  promise  is  made  to  good  works, 
merely  as  signs  of  faith :  since  it  is  piain  from  these  same 
passages  (to  which  one  might  easily  add  many  others)  that 
our  works  in  the  matter  of  salvation  are  viewed  as  the  indis- 
pensable cause  or  condition  precedent,  which  carries  vrith  it 
inseparably  the  promise  of  eternal  life."  Another  weapon  I 
took  from  the  armoury  of  Hugo  Grotius,  who  proves  that 
good  works  cannot  be  viewed  in  the  matter  of  salvation  as 
mere  signs  of  faith,  by  this  unanswerable  argument :  "  Things 
which  are  viewed  as  signs,  are  less  in  themselves  than  the 
things  signified :  but  love,  which  performs  these  works,  and 
by  a  sort  of  figure  is  implied  in  these  works,  is  greater  than 
faith,  1  Cor.  xiii.  13."  To  these  arguments  (as  usual)  you  are 
as  silent  as  a  mouse  :  and  what  end  will  there  be  to  discussion, 


128  Justification  here  and  hereafter 

S  T  R I C.  if  an  adversary  is  at  liberty  still  to  support  bis  statement  from 

'. —  an  Lypothesis  already  once  refuted  and  exploded  ? 

§  4.  There  remains  the  third  part  of  your  Stricture,  "Justifi- 
cation is  various  accordiug  to  tlie  variety  of  the  question.  If 
a  man  is  called  to  trial  as  to  bis  innocence"  &c.  Alas  for  your 
trifling  !  Suppose  tliat  justification  is  various :  wliat  tlien  ? 
surely  the  justification  of  which  there  cau  be  any  question^  is 
one  and  the  same,  viz.  Gospel  justification,  or  that  which  is 
enacted  accordiug  to  the  rule  of  the  law  and  covenant  of  the 
Gospel.  On  this  point  we  ever  maiutain  that  a  man  is  con- 
stituted  righteous  in  this  life  and  is  declared  righteous  in  the 
World  to  come  on  the  same  conditions,  \i'i.  of  faith  and  good 
works,  or  love,  which  by  a  sort  of  figure,  as  I  said,  is  implied 
in  those  good  works.  But  as  regards  yoiu'  questions,  if  the 
question  be  instituted  as  to  man's  innocence,  whether  he  be 
guilty  or  innocent,  we  must  at  once  coufess  ourselves  gu.ilty. 
No  oue  can  be  freed  from  this  charge,  hy  which  he  is  con- 
victed  of  being  a  sinner  in  God's  sight,  either  by  faith  or 
works,  or  botli  together,  or  in  any  other  way,  either  in  this 
life  or  in  that  which  is  to  come.  But  our  Lord  has  purchased 
this  for  ns — that  no  sinner,  solely  because  he  is  a  sinner  and 
who  has  not  added  to  all  bis  other  sins  the  additional  crime 
of  infidelity  or  impenitence,  should  perish  for  ever  :  and  this 
grace,  which  is  called  the  New  Covenant,  is  declared  and 
ratified  in  the  Gospel.  This  is  what  St.  Paul  meant  when  he 
proves  by  many  arguments  that  all  men  have  sinned  and  ai'e 
liable  to  God^s  wratli  and  eternal  death ;  consequeutly  that 
no  one  can  be  freed  from  condemuation  otherwise  than  by 
and  on  account  of  Christ,  and  accordiug  to  the  gi*acious 
covenant  established  in  Christ.  This  argument  of  the 
Apostle  I  foUowed  out  at  length  II.  Diss.  c.  \\\\.,  and  have  so 
often  openly  in  the  Harmouy  declared  the  fact  itself,  which 
is  supported  by  this  argument,  that  I  am  lost  in  wonder  at 
either  your  utter  shamelessness,  or  at  any  rate  your  most 
gross  neglect  in  reading  my  book,  since  you  are  continuaUy 
in  your  Strictures  objecting  against  me  that  I  teach  the  con- 
trary.  And  thns  much  as  to  your  first  question.  But  now 
if  a  man  be  questioned  as  to  bis  Performance  of  the  condi- 
tions  of  the  Gospel,  he  is  made  righteous  in  this  hfe  and 
pronounced  righteous  in  the  world  to  come  not  by  faith  alone 


dependent  on  the  sarae  condition.  129 

but  by  vrorks  also,  or  by  '  faith  perfected  by  love/  since  tliis  s  T  R  l  c. 
is  the  wbole  condition  required  in  the  covenant  of  the  Gos-  ^^  ' — 
pel.  And  this  is  all  I  contend  for,  and  which  I  have  proved 
by  many  arguments.  You,  however,  are  constantly  begging 
the  question,  and  objecting  that  a  man  is  merely  tested  by 
his  -vvorks  whether  or  no  he  has  performed  the  condition  of 
justification  required  in  the  Gospel,  which  is  faith  alone,  as  a 
Single  virtue. 

§  5.  Thus  all  that  you  have  set  forth  against  my  argument 
does  not  prevent  me  from  still  rightly  declaring  it  to  be  un- 
answerable.  There  are,  I  allow,  some  other  exceptions  which 
you  have  adduced  on  this  chapter  against  my  elucidation  of 
this  same  argument;  but  these  are  either  off  the  point,  or 
present  the  reader  with  a  repetition  of  what  has  been  already 
Said.  One  or  two  of  these,  however,  we  will  examine.  You 
say  that  "  the  method  of  declaring  the  righteousness  of  the 
faithful  in  the  last  judgment,  is  different  fi'om  that  of  con- 
stituting  him  righteous  in  this  life;  which  can  be,  and  is 
done  really,  by  faith  only;  which  the  Searcher  of  hearts  well 
knows  to  be  true  and  li^dng  before  its  fruits  are  brought 
forth."  I  answer,  that  a  man  is  justified  by  true  and  living 
faith  alone^  before  the  bringing  forth  of  fruits,  T  grant,  if 
you  are  speaking  of  the  first  justification,  and  by  '  Hving 
faith'  mean  (as  you  ought)  '  a  faith  perfected  by  love :'  and 
by  '  fruits'  a  series  and  course  of  visible  works,  or  that  holy 
life  of  which  I  have  often  spoken :  for  this  faith  comprises 
the  internal  virtues  of  repentance,  love,  &c. :  moreover,  also, 
it  brings  forth  some  pious  words  and  deeds  the  moment  it 
is  conceived.  But  what  would  you  infer  frotn  hence  ?  Surely 
this  only  legitimately :  \\z.  that  a  man  who  believes,  repents 
of  his  sins,  loves  God,  and  in  God  and  for  God's  sake  his 
neighbour,  and  finally  expresses  this  his  inward  piety  by 
pious  words  and  deeds,  as  occasion  shall  offer,  that  such  a 
man  can  attain  to  the  first  grace  of  justification,  and  so  in 
truth  does  attain  even  before  that  course  of  visible  works. 
This  I  have  not  only  openly  declared  in  my  Dissertations, 
but  have  frequently  inculcated  on  the  reader.  But  how  does 
this  affect  the  major  premiss  of  my  argument?  Not  one  Avhit. 
For  suppose  a  man  who  thus  believed  and  repented  were 
immediately,    before    auy   fruits    of    a    holy    life    had    becu 


130  The  Censurer's  frivolous  distinction  between 

s  T  R I  c.  broufflit  fortli,  snatched  away  from  this  life :  I  ask  wliether 

"Y"  T TT"  * 

'. —  he  in  tlie  last  judgment  will   be  judged  according  to  liis 

works?  Surely  no  one  in  liis  senses  will  deny  it,  wken  it  is 
an  universal  declaration  of  Holy  Scripture,  concerning  every 
adult  person,  or  wlio  is  capable  of  doing  moral  good  or  e\i\, 

Ps.  62.12;  tliat  '  God  will  render  to  every  one  according  to  bis  works.' 

27^*  Rom  -^^^  according  to  wbat  works  will  such  a  man  be  judged  ? 

2. 6 ;  Rev.  Assuredly  according  to  those  internal  works  of  faith,  repent- 
ance,  love,  hc,  which  he  had  expressed  by  corresponding 
words  and  deeds,  as  he  had  opportunity.  According  to  this 
more  imperfect  piet}'-,  God  in  His  infinite  mercy  in  Christ 

Acts 3. 19;  Jesus  will  give  him  "in  the  times  of  refreshing  forgiveness  of 

26. 18  .  .  .  . 

sinSj  and  an  inheritance  among  them  that  are  sanctified," 
but  an  inheritance  inferior  to  that  which  will  be  assigned  to 
those  who  have  attained  a  more  perfect  habit  of  Christian 
piety  by  the  continual  exercise  of  good  works ;  and  therefore 
of  this  man  also  the  major  premiss  of  my  argument  will  be 
true :  viz.  that  he  will  be  judged  by  God  in  the  world  to 
come  in  the  same  way,  i.  e.  ou  the  same  condition,  by  which 
he  is  justified  by  God  in  this  life. 

Sect.  3.  §6-1  had  Said  that  when  we  are  justified  in  this  life  the 

right  to  eternal  life  is  first  conferred  on  us  by  the  law  of 
Christ :  but  when  we  are  judged  in  the  world  to  come,  the 
same  right  is  definitely  determined  to  us  by  the  solemn 
sentence  of  the  judge :  which  I  had  laid  down  as  it  were  the 
foundation  of  the  major  premiss  of  my  argument.  To  this 
(after  many  other  things  which  I  have  ah'eady  refuted  at 
length)  you  answer,  "We  must  know  that  a  right  to  a 
thing  and  a  right  in  a  thing  ought  to  be  distinguished.  A 
right  to  a  heavenly  inheritance  (of  which  St.  Peter  speaks 
Ist  Epistle  i.  4.)  depends  immediately  on  our  adoption 
through  Christ,  Rom.  viii.  17,  of  which  faitli  is  the  conveyer, 

Gal.  3.  26.  before  that  obedience  which  every  son  of  God  performs ;  but 

°  ■  ■     ■  a  riglit  in  taking  the  inheritance  is  adjudged  by  good  works, 

or  by  the  fruits  of  charity  (which  comes  under  the  name  of 

5i»co<o(rw»7.  righteousness)."     I  answer,  Ist,  The  distinction  between  a 

Phil.  1.11.  right  to  a  thing,  and  a  right  in  a  thing,  as  far  as  it  applies  to 
this  qucstiou,  is  frivolous,  and  lias  no  grounds  to  support  it. 
Whoever  by  faith  'perfected  by  love'  has  a  right  by  the 
promise  of  the  Gospel  to  a  heavenly  inheritance,  that  man. 


a  right  ' to'  and  a  right  'in'  a  thing.  131 

if  he  dies  the  next  moment^  must  have  a  right  also  in  the  STRic. 

kingdom,  with  no  other  condition  interveuing  on  the  part  of  _: L_ 

the  man  himself.  He  who  would  dare  to  question  this,  can- 
not  be  quite  in  his  senses.  But  (you  will  sav)  if  God  pro- 
long  the  life  of  such  a  man,  a  continual  and  pious  com'se  of 
works  and  progress  in  holiness  is  reqnired  from  him.  Of 
conrse,  but  why  is  it  required  ?  in  order  tliat  he  may  obtain 
any  new  right  ?  Of  course  not,  it  is  required  in  order  that  he 
may  retain  and  preserve  the  right  he  has  obtained^.  For  a 
right  to  the  kingdom,  Avhicli  is  granted  to  a  man  in  his  first 
justification,  is  (as  we  have  often  said)  'a  right  depending' 
on  a  future  condition,  to  be  performed  if  God  shall  grant  life  : 
consequently  a  right  revocable.  This  is  the  piain  doctrine 
of  Holy  Scripture,  of  the  Church  Catholic,  and  so  of  our  own 
Church.  I  will  add  a  couA-incing  proof  of  this.  Ko  one  is 
admitted  to  the  grace  of  the  first  justification,  who  has  not 
in  vow,  at  least,  and  sincere  purpose,  bound  himself  to  obey 
God  for  the  future  according  to  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel. 
Now  who  does  not  see  that  the  obedience  which  must  in 
vow  be  necessarily  undertaken  to  obtain  the  grace  of  justifi- 
cation, must  no  less  necessarily  be  performed  in  very  deed  to 
retain  the  benefit  received,  provided  God  give  opportunity  ? 
2ndly,  You  sadly  betray  your  inconsistency  when  you  afiirm 
that  the  adoption  of  sons  and  a  right  to  a  heavenly  inherit- 
ance  is  granted  to  faith  alone.  For  above,  when  I  was 
proring  by  many  most  express  testimonies  of  Scripture,  that 
no  one  by  faith  alone,  as  a  single  virtue,  and  without  other 
virtues,  was  accepted  by  God  unto  salvation,  and  was  inferring 
thence,  that  no  one  by  faith  alone,  as  a  single  rirtue,  is  justi- 
fied,  you  answered  so  as  not  to  deny  the  antecedent,  nor  to 
reject  the  passages  of  Scripture  as  falsely  adduced  by  me; 
but  you  were  content  with  rejecting  the  consequent  only. 
Here  having  waxed  bolder,  and  going  on  farther,  you  flatly 
deny  that  any  thing  besides  faith  is  necessary  to  obtain  a 
right  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  to  be  accepted  by  God  unto 
salvation.  3rdly,  Your  over-confident  assertion  that  a  right 
to  a  heavenly  inheritance  is  granted  to  faith  alone  before  any 
obedience  on  our  part,  is  most  false  and  dangerous.  I  entreat 

■^  Progress  in  holiness  is  besides  re-       kingdom.     See  2  Pet.  i.  8,  11. 
quired  for  a  fuller  entrance  into  Christ's 

k2 


132  Forgiveness  prior  to  acceptance  with  God. 

s  T  R I  c.  you  to  look  at  those  passages  of  Scripture,  and  deign  to  give 

—^ '—  some  sort  of  just  answer  to  them.     Or  if  j^our  mind  slirinks 

from  tliis  laboiu',  at  least  answer  tliose  passages  of  Scripture 
■which  ui'ge  the  necessity  of  repentance,  (embracing  in  its  füll 
sense  tlie  whole  duty  of  a  Christian  prescribed  in  tbe  Gospel 
covenant,)  tliat  we  may  thereby  obtain  remission  of  sins.  Eor 
from  these  passages  I  argue  tlius  conclusively :  No  one  from 
tlie  promise  of  tlie  Gospel^  by  faith  alone^  and  without  repent- 
ance, has  a  rigbt  to  pardon  or  forgiveness  of  sins :  therefore 
no  one  by  the  Gospel  covenant  has  a  right  by  faith  alone  and 
without  repentance  to  a  heavenly  kingdom.  The  conclusion 
is  most  manifest.  For  it  is  something  greater  to  have  a  right 
to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  than  to  have  a  right  to  pardon  or 
forgiveness  of  sins ;  and  if  these  two  are  to  be  distinguished, 
the  right  to  pardon  in  the  natural  Order  of  things  must  come 
before  the  right  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The  premisses 
are  supported  by  so  many  and  satisfactory  testimonies  of 
Scripture,  that  no  one,  who  has  the  Holy  Scriptm-es  at  heart, 
will  question  them.  But  what  need  of  words?  You  your- 
self  (as  we  have  seen  above)  expressly  allow  that  "  repentance 
is  required  by  God  for  reconciliation  with  Him.^'  I  only  ask 
you  this  one  question,  whether  any  one  has  a  right  to  salva- 
tion  before  he  is  reconciled  with  God  ?  If  you  affirm  this,  I 
shall  be  astonished  how  (to  use  the  words  of  Terence),  tarn 
ineptum  quidquam  potuerit  tibi  venire  in  mentem. 

§  7.  Thus  at  length,  after  a  careful  review,  I  have  vindicated 
my  first  Dissertation  from  your  objections.  For  your  remarks 
on  the  sixth  chapter  are  so  frivolous  and  utterly  unimportant 
(I  solemnly  declare  that  I  write  this  as  the  truth  from  my 
heart)  that  I  cannot  delay  the  reader  with  them.  I  was  also 
afraid  of  this  examination  growing  to  a  too  great  and  un- 
necessary  bulk.  Your  notes  on  my  latter  Dissertation  will  be 
more  easily  despatched,  for  you  have  so  ordered  your  Stric- 
tures,  (either  by  accident  or  design,)  that  your  censures  on  my 
first  Dissertation  have  been  more  lengthy  than  in  the  latter : 
moreover  j^ou  have  treated  of  some  things  there,  which  more 
properlybelong  to  the  latter  Dissertation.  But  I  shall  be  scrupu- 
lous  in  not  passing  by  any  thing  which  you  have  censurcd,  and 
which  1  have  not  yet  refuted,  that  seems  with  any  appearauce 
of  reason  to  impugn  my  method  of  reconciling  the  Apostlcs. 


Plac(Bus'  notion  of  justification,  133 

STRICTURE  XV. 

ON  II.  DISS.  iii.  4.  p.  55,  56. 

Here,  after  rejecting  three  ways  of  reconciling  St.  James  STRIC. 

with  St.  Paul,  in  the  last  place  I  weigh  the  opinion  of  the : — 

learned  Joshua  Placseus  on  the  best  means  of  reconciling 
the  apparent  contradiction.  My  vords  are :  "  The  last 
opinion  which  now  remains,  is  that  which,  I  find,  greatly 
pleased  that  learned  man  Placaus,  and  I  am  not  sure  -^vhether 
it  be  not  peculiar  to  him.  He  thus  explains  it :  '  Justification 
is  opposed  to  accusation :  two  charges  are  laid  against  us  at 
the  judgment.  First,  it  is  objected  that  we  are  sinners,  i.  e. 
have  Aaolated  the  covenant  of  the  law  :  secondly,  that  we  are 
unbelievers,  i.  e.  have  not  performed  the  condition  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  viz.  faith.  From  the  first  accusation  we 
are  justified  by  faith  alone,  through  which  we  embrace  the 
grace  and  righteousness  of  Christ ;  from  the  latter,  by  works, 
which  are  the  proofs  of  faith.  St.  James  regarding  the  latter 
accusation,  properly  asserts  that  man  is  justified  by  Morks 
and  not  by  faith  alone :  but  St.  Paul  regarding  the  first,  con- 
tends  that  man  is  justified  by  faith  only.' — Thus  far  he. 
But  not  to  speak  of  other  mistakes  in  this  opinion,  the 
learned  man  is  mistaken  in  his  Avhole  System.  For  he  first 
asserts  that  faith  is  the  whole  and  only  condition  of  the 
Gospel  covenant,  and  that  works  are  only  to  be  regarded  as 
signs  and  proofs  of  faith,  all  which  has  been  already  proved 
erroneous :  and  secondly,  that  works  are  admitted  by 
St.  James  as  necessary  to  the  latter  justification,  and  faith 
as  sufiicient  by  St.  Paul  to  the  first,  both  of  which  we  have 
Seen  are  far  from  the  truth,  and  with  respect  to  St.  Paul 
shall  soon  particularly  prove  it."  To  all  this  you  answer 
thus  at  length.  "^Tiat  this  excellent  man  (whose  State- 
ments I  have  never  yet  met  with)  proposes  for  the  reconcile- 
ment  of  the  Apostles,  quite  agrees  with  what  my  father  of 
blesscd  memory  held,  of  whom  I  entreat  you  to  allow  me  to 
say  a  few  words.  T.  G.«  of  London,  (whose  name  without 
mention  of  mine  is  sufficiently  well  known,)  A.D.  1617, 
undertook  to  explain  in  Sermons  the  Epistle  of  St.  James, 
which  by  God's  grace  he  performed  with  systematic  accuracy. 

'  Thomas  Gataker. 


134  lühich  agrees  unth  that  of  Mr.  Gataker. 

s  T  R I  c.  At  lengtlij  A.D.  1640^  wlien  fierce  contentions  were  rife  on  tlie 
— ^ — '■ —  poiut  of  justification  in  the  city  cliurclies,  being  a  man  no 
less  desirous  of  peace  than  truth,  he  endeavoured  with  a  calm 
and  settled  mind,  vet  witli  sevei'e  reasoning  to  set  fortli  tlie 
trnth,  which  Lad  been  well-nigh  lost  in  altercation,  and 
certainly  obscured  by  the  clouds  of  passion  j  and  thus  to  put 
an  end  to  dispute.  For  bis  text,  as  tbe  ground  of  bis  mani- 
fold  Dissertation^  be  cbose  tbe  passage  of  St.  Paul,  Rom.  iii.  28. 
Tbe  notes  of  tbese  Sermons,  or  tbe  imperfect  and  rüde  out- 
lines,  I  bave  now  in  my  possession.  Would  tbat  be  bad  been 
able  to  put  bis  last  band  to  tbem.  A  little  wbile  before  bis 
deatb  he  gatbered  togetber  bis  scattered  papers,  and  began 
to  recast  bis  discoiu'ses.  But  overtaken  by  disease,  and  soon 
buri'ied  away  by  deatb,  be  laid  aside  bis  work  witb  bis  bfe 
(witbin  a  few  weeks  of  being  an  octogenarian) .  He  pursued 
one  course  in  tbe  exposition  of  botb  Apostles.  After  reject- 
ing  (not  witbout  assigning  bis  reason  for  rejection)  various 
elaborations  of  various  persons,  wbicb  were  eitber  unsound 
or  inapposite,  be  took  bis  stand  by  tbe  opinion  wbicb  I  see 
Placffius  adopted.  Tbis  I  will  briefly  insert  from  bis  notes, 
from  wbicb  I  sball  not  be  asbamed  to  learn  wisdom.  He 
allows  tbat  botb  Apostles,  in  putting  foi'ward  tbe  justification 
of  Abraham,  meant  tbe  same  faith,  viz.  real  living  and  saving 
faitb ;  tbat  we  mnst  not  suppose  diflferent  kinds  of  justification 
meant,  but  tbat  tbis  justification  is  a  deliverance  or  acquittal 
fi'om  a  Charge  brougbt  against  us,  or  from  tbe  irapntation 
of  fault.  He  also  did  not  suppose  it  necessary  to  imagine 
different  courts,  in  wbicb  God  pleads  with  Christians.  Tbat 
tbe  two  Apostles  botb  spoke  of  the  same  works  be  proved 
from  the  example  of  Abraham,  wbicb  St.  Paul  produces  to 
include  his  works  from  justification,  and  St.  James  to  shew 
tbat  they  availed  to  justification.  At  lengtb,  however,  he 
distinguishes  the  point  in  qucstion,  and  observes  tbat  the 
State  of  the  question  is  difi'erent  in  the  two  Apostles.  In 
St.  Paul  tbe  state  of  tbe  question  or  point  of  dispute  is  as  to 
a  person's  guilt,  from  sin  in  general :  (suppose  of  Abraham, 
the  fatlicr  and  pattern  of  the  faitbful :)  1.  Wbcther  by  the  law 
of  God  bc  is  amenable  to  Divine  Justice?  and  ^since  no  flesli 
is  just  before  God,^  Aybctber  and  liow  he  can  be  justified? 
St.  Paul  avows   that  u  man   manifestly  guilty,   cannot   be 


This  opinionfalse  in  every  respect.  135 

otherwise  freed  from  the  charge  laid  against  Lim,  and  s  T  R I C. 
cleared  from  aspersion  of  tlie  fault^  i.  e.  be  justified,  but  — __ — 
tlirougli  the  obedience  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  faith  in  His 
blood,  which  makes  the  righteousness  of  oiu"  Sponsor  our 
own  :  but  that  the  best  works  cannot  be  alleged  for  the 
obtaining  of  righteousness,  nor  avail  to  do  away  the  punish- 
ment  of  sin.  But  in  the  other,  the  state  of  the  question  is  as 
to  a  man  who  is  accused  of  any  particular  sin,  whether  it  be 
perfidy  towards  man  or  hypocrisy  before  God.  Now  a  man 
can  defend  his  integrity,  even  in  God^s  sight,  (if  he  be  not 
conscious  of  any  deceit,)  and  prove  and  defend  his  inno- 
cence,  by  his  works;  and  he  will  be  justified  by  works.  Thus 
in  St.  James  this  is  the  case  with  Abraham,  the  sincerity  of 
whose  virtues  was  thus  proved  before  God."  After  explaining 
your  father^s  opinion,  brimful  of  seif-confidence,  you  say 
somewhat  arrogantly,  "you  despise  the  best  method  of  recou- 
ciling  the  Apostles,  because  you  do  not  understand  it." 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XV. 

§  1.  Placseus'  opinion,  *?yhich  I  now  see  was  not  peculiar  to 
him,  but  held  in  common  with  your  father,  I  thought  I  had 
refuted  sufficiently,  though  briefly,  in  the  place  on  which  this 
Stricture  is  inflicted.  I  say  that  this  opinion  is  false  both  in 
Statement  and  assumption.  As  regards  the  statement,  the 
learned  man  plainly  held  that  faith  is  the  whole  and  entire 
condition  of  the  Gospel  covenant,  and  that  works  are  con- 
sidered  only  as  the  signs  and  arguments  of  faith:  that  this  is 
most  false  I  have  proved  both  in  the  Harmony  and  Examen 
by  many  unanswerable  reasons  and  arguments.  As  regards 
the  assumption,  Placseus  holds  that  St.  Paul  treats  of  works 
as  though  they  were  necessary  to  justification  :  (viz.  that  by 
which  we  are  freed  fi'om  the  charge  brought  against  us  of 
being  unbelievers,  and  not  having  fulfilled  the  condition  of 
the  covenant  of  grace :)  that  faith  is  admitted  by  St.  James 
as  sufficient  for  our  justification  from  the  charge  brought 
against  us,  that  we  are  guilty  of  having  violated  the  condition 
laid  down  in  the  covenant  of  the  law :  both  which  Statements 
are  untrue.  For  the  works  of  which  St.  Paul  is  treating, 
are  excluded  by  him  from  any  part  in  our  justification.     For 


136  Placceus'  notionfalse  in  statement. 

STRI  c.  St.  Paul  is  not  treating  of  works  proceeding  from  faith,  and 

'- —  by  whicb,  as  argumeuts  and  proofs,  our  faith  may  be  proved  : 

but  of  tbe  '  works  of  tbe  law/  i.  e.  of  works  eitber  ritual,  or 
otbers  wbich  have  notbing  in  common  witb  tbe  faitb  and 
grace  of  tbe  Gospel.  Hence  be  expressly  opposes  tbe  law 
against  Avbieb  be  argues,  to  tbe  law  of  faitb,  Kom.  iii.  27. 
I  say  also  tbat  tbe  faitb  of  wbicb  St.  James  treats,  is  not 
admitted  by  bim  as  sufficient  for  our  primary  justification 
(by  wbicb  forsootb  we  are  freed  from  tbe  cbarge  tbat  is 
brougbt  against  us  of  baving  violated  tbe  condition  laid 
down  in  tbe  covenant  of  tbe  law).  For  be  rejects  faith  by 
itself  altogetber,  as  vain  and  tborougbly  useless.  But  tbis 
faith  would  not  be  vain  and  useless  if  it  were  sufficient  for 
our  primary  justification.  On  these  grounds  I  affirmed  tbat 
Placaeus'  opinion  contributed  notbing  to  tbe  Solution  of 
our  difficulty.  But  in  spite  of  all  these  tbings,  (according  to 
your  custom  of  sticking  pertinaciously  to  your  conclusion  in 
spite  of  all  arguments,)  you  affirm  tbat  I  have  despised  tbe 
best  method  of  reconciling  tbe  Apostles  because  I  did  not 
understand  it. 

§  2.  Well,  then,  let  us  examine  more  accurately  tbis  best 
means  of  recoucilement  explained  by  Placseus  briefly  and 
succinctly,  wbicb  you  have  drawn  out  more  at  length  from 
your  father's  notes,  thougb  not  a  bit  more  clearly :  and  bere 
again  we  will  consider  your  opinion  as  to  a  man^s  accusation 
and  tbe  justification  opposite  thereto  in  God^s  sight,  first 
in  Statement  and  apart  from  tbe  present  question,  next  in 
assumption,  and  as  far  as  it  is  applied  by  you  to  reconcile 
St.  Paul  and  St.  James  together.  As  regards  tbe  statement, 
first  it  must  be  noted  tbat  tbe  various  causes  and  questions 
in  tbe  matter  of  man's  justification  (of  wbicb  you  speak)  are 
not  explained  by  you  accurately  and  distinctly  enough.  A 
right  line  is  a  rule  both  for  itself  and  an  oblique  one,  and 
therefore  I  Avill  briefly  set  before  tbe  reader  tbe  real  trutb : 
and  wben  tbis  is  known  and  understood,  it  will  be  very  easy 
to  discern  tbe  error  and  fallacy  of  your  explanation.  Wben 
we  speak  of  tbe  justification  or  accusation  of  a  man  in  God^s 
sight,  three  questions  may  be  instituted.  Tbe  first  question 
is,  wbether  a  man  is  a  sinner,  and  liable  to  eternal  death  on 
account  of  bis  sins  ?    Here  no  onc  can  defend  bimself  before 


The  true  statement  ofthe  guestion.  137 

God  '  as  not  guilty/  as  St.  Paul  constantly  teaches.  2nclly,  It  s  T  R  l  C. 
may  be  asked,  whetlier  a  sinner  must  '  necessarily'  be  con-  — :__: — 
demned  and  punished  witb  eternal  deatb  ?  We  answer,  by  no 
means — Here  the  satisfaction  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  comes 
to  our  succour,  by  -which  it  has  been  eifected  not  only  that 
God  can  with  justice,  but  that  He  also  will  deliver  a  sinner 
frora  death^  and  give  him  Hfe  and  eternal  salvation,  under 
certain  conditions  to  be  performed  by  man  through  the  grace 
of  God.  3rdly.  Lastly,  a  tliird  question  may  be  asked,  viz. 
whether  a  sinner  has  performed  the  conditions  on  which  by 
the  will  both  of  God  the  Father  and  Christ  Himselfj  the 
saving  fruit  and  eflfect  of  Christas  satisfaction  depends :  and 
consequently,  whether  according  to  the  covenant  entered  into 
between  the  Son  giving  and  the  Father  recei"ving  satisfaction, 
(the  'handwriting'  of  which  we  have  in  the  covenant  of  the 
Gospel,)  he  is  to  be  delivered  from  death,  and  granted  eternal 
life,  i.  e.  be  justified  ?  The  man  who  does  not  here  see  that 
the  saving  fruit  of  Christ's  satisfaction  does  not  depend  on 
faith  alone,  as  a  single  virtue,  must  be  enveloped  in  worse 
than  Cimmerian  darkness.  For  it  is  perfectly  clear  from 
innumerable  passages  of  Scripture,  (which  I  have  shewn  over 
and  over  again,)  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins  (which  is  the 
Chief  fruit  and  effect  of  Christ's  satisfaction,  and  draws  every 
thing  eise  with  it)  depends  on  the  condition  not  only  of  faith 
but  also  (and  that  especially)  of  repentance.  AVhat  need  of 
words?  The  Holy  Spirit  expressly  teaches  that  the  Son  of 
God  'perfected  by  sufferings,  has  become  the  author  of  Heb. 2.10 ; 
eternal  salvation  to  all  them  that  obey  Him/  i.  e.  for  all  those  "  '  ' 
and  those  only,  has  He  by  His  death  obtained  justification 
and  salvation.  Therefore,  if  a  man  is  accused  of  not  having 
performed  the  condition  on  which  the  saving  ü'uit  and  effect 
of  Christ's  satisfaction  by  the  will  of  God  and  Christ  revealed 
in  the  Gospel  depends,  it  is  e^ddent  that  he  cannot  be  freed 
from  that  accusation  by  faith  alone.  Somewhat  eise  must  be 
adduced  by  him  for  his  justification. 

§  3.  He  who  keeps  this  in  mind  will  easily  see,  Ist,  that 
you  are  wrong  in  teaching  that  a  man  is  justified  from  the 
first  accusation,  by  which  he  is  charged  with  being  a  sinner, 
and  guilty  of  having  violated  the  condition  laid  down  in  the 
covenant  of  the  law.     For  from  this  charge  no  mau  can  be 


138  Abmrdities  of  Placaus'  notion  exposed; 

STRIC.  justified  by  any  means;  it  will  for  ever  stand  that  man  has 

:: : sinned^  and  violated  tlie  condition  of  tlie  covenant  of  tbe  law. 

The  satisfaction  of  Christ  is  not  a  pavment  of  that  very  thing 
which  was  dne;  for  that  was  the  personal  (as  they  say) 
punishment  of  the  delinquent;  the  law  therefore,  through 
Christas  satisfaction,  is  not  put  into  execution.  2ndly,  It  will 
be  Seen  clearly  that  von  have  not  placed  faith  in  its  proper 
place  and  order.  For  you  join  it  as  it  were  with  the  riglite- 
Gusness  and  satisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ  for  this  end,  viz.  that 
a  man  may  be  justified  fi'om  that  first  accusation,  wliich 
charges  bim  with  being  a  sinner  and  guilty  of  haviug  violated 
the  condition  laid  down  in  the  covenant  of  the  Gospel.  Thus 
Placseus  :  "  from  the  first  accusation  we  are  justified  by  faith 
alone,  through  which  we  embrace  the  grace  and  righteous- 
ness  of  Christ."  In  like  manner  you  also  aifinn  that  "a 
man  is  freed  from  the  charge  urged  against  him  through  the 
obedience  or  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  through  faith  in 
Christas  blood,  which  makes  the  righteousness  of  our  Sponsor 
cur  own."  N.B.  by  "the  obedience  of  Christ  and  our  faith." 
Thus  you  ascribe  a  sort  of  legal  justification  to  faith ;  but  the 
secret  of  the  thing  lies  in  this ;  you  think  that  by  faith,  as 
by  an  Instrument,  the  rigliteousness  and  satisfaction  of  Christ 
is  made  really  our  own,  by  which  we  ourselves  are  constituted 
perfectly  righteous,  even  according  to  the  rigom*  of  the  law. 
But  here  you  are  iuvolved  in  a  threefold  error.  For,  Ist, 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  not  made  really  ours  :  2ndly,  if 
it  were  made  ours,  it  could  not  be  made  ours  through  faith : 
Srdly,  much  less  can  faith  efl:ect  by  way  of  an  Instrument, 
that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  should  be  made  really  ours ; 
each  of  which  we  have  fully  proved  above.  ^^hat  follows  ? 
Faith,  then,  at  length  obtains  its  proper  place,  ^^hen  it  is 
adduced  for  om*  justification  from  that  last  accusation,  by 
which  Ave  are  charged  with  not  having  performed  the  con- 
dition of  the  covenant  of  grace.  But  from  this  accusation 
faith  justifies  a  man  in  part  only,  i.  e.  faith  is  a  part  indeed 
of  the  condition,  but  not  the  whole  and  entire  condition,  on 
which  according  to  the  covenant  of  the  Gospel  our  justi- 
fication or  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins  by  the  blood  of  Christ 
depends. 

§  4.  The  next  thing  that  I  propose  to  the  reader's  observ- 


\which  is  equally  false  in  assumption.  139 

ation  is  this  :  tliat  according  to  yoiir  opinion  there  is  a  sort  s  T  R I  c. 

of  justification  of  a  man,   '  and  tliat  in  God's  siglit/  from ^_: 

hypocrisy,  or  from  the  charge  of  not  liaA'ing  performed  tlie 
condition  required  in  the  Gospel  covenant,  viz.  faith  by 
means  of  signs  and  proofs,  i.  e.  good  works.  I  say,  tliat 
this  justification  is  made  out  by  you  not  only  unnecessarily 
but  absurdly.  For  God  sees  by  immediate  intuition,  (so  to 
speak,)  and  sees  through  thoroughly  both  our  faith  and  its 
sincerity.  He  has  no  need  of  signs,  proofs,  or  otlier  tests,  to 
be  able  to  judge  with  certainty  of  it.  I  pass  from  the  doctrine 
to  the  assumption. 

§  5.  Surely  the  opinion  which  is  so  false  and  absurd  in 
doctrine,  will  not  be  true  in  assumption,  and  cannot  be 
used  to  reconcile  the  two  Apostles  except  as  au  iugenious 
device.  Nevertheless,  that  the  truth  may  be  seen  more 
clearly,  I  will  shew  briefly  that  this  method  of  reconcilement 
which  you  call  the  best  is  thoroughly  futile.  There  is  no 
question  of  what  justification  St.  Paul  is  speaking;  the 
whole  diflFerence  and  dispute  is,  what  sort  of  justification  is 
meant  in  St.  James's  discourse  chap.  ii.  And  here  you  your- 
self  allow  that  the  justification  of  which  St.  James  speaks 
is  that  which  passes  before  God's  tribunal :  but  you  will 
have  that  justification  to  be  no  other  than  that  by  which  the 
sincerity  of  our  faith  is  proved  before  God  by  works,  or  by 
which  we  are  freed  at  God^s  tribunal  from  the  charge  of  not 
having  performed  the  condition  of  the  Gospel,  viz.  faith.  I 
say  that  this  interpretation  does  not  at  all  Square  with 
St.  James^s  discourse.  For,  Ist,  the  Apostle  plainly  enough 
attributes  justification  of  the  same  kind  both  to  works  and 
faith,  and  yokes  faith  and  works  together  as  a  pair  draw- 
ing  the  same  justification  along  with  them.  The  words  are 
express  :  "  Ye  see  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified  and  not  Jas.  2.  24. 
by  faith  only  •/'  whence  it  is  clear  that  although  not  by  faith 
only,  yet  by  faith  also  and  not  by  works  alone  a  man  is  justi- 
fied by  that  justification  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks.  But 
anothcr  justification  cannot  be  attributed  to  faith  than  that 
by  which  a  man  is  freed  on  account  of  Christ  from  eternal 
condemnation,  and  is  accepted  unto  salvation :  therefore  of 
this  justification  alone  St.  James  must  be  understood  in  each 
part  of  the  proposition.     Whichevcr  way  you  turn,  you  can- 


140  St.  PauVs  opponents. — His  object 

s  T  R I  c.  not  avoid  the  force  of  this  argumeut.     2ndly,  Tliis  iiiter- 


XV. 


pretation  blots  the  Apostle's  argument  with  a  most  gross 
solecism.  For  if  St.  James  is  speaking  of  that  justification 
by  which  tlie  sincerity  of  our  faith  is  proved  before  God;  then 
his  conclusion  "  You  see  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified^  and 
not  by  faith  only,"  must  be  explained  thus  :  '  You  see  that  by 
works  the  sincerity  of  a  man's  faith  is  proved  before  God, 
and  not  by  faith  only.'  Who  in  his  senses  would  not  be 
indignant  at  so  unmeaning  a  seuse  being  fixed  upon  that 
most  wise  Apostle  ?  3rdly,  To  this  interpretation  are  plainly 
opposed  the  words,  ver.  14^  "  What  shall  it  profit^  my  brethren, 
if  a  man  say  he  have  faith  and  have  not  works  ?  avüI  faith 
saA'e  him  ?^'  For  hence  it  is  as  clear  as  possible  that  the 
Apostle  is  speaking  of  that  accusation,  not  by  which  we  are 
freed  from  the  charge  of  hypocrisy,  (as  you  say  and  think^) 
but  by  ^yhich  we  are  delivered  from  eternal  damnation,  and 
acquire  a  right  to  salvation  :  and  according  to  the  Apostle, 
faith  is  in  need  of  works,  (i.  e.  of  love,  which  produces  all 
good  worksj  not  only  that  its  sincerity  may  be  prored  before 
God,  but  also  that  it  may  be  of  avail  to  a  man's  salvation. 
These  ai'guments  I  had  used  II.  Diss.  i.  7.  p.  45,  to  destroy 
the  hypothesis  of  those  who  understand  the  justification  of 
St.  James  to  be  a  declaration  of  righteousness  before  men. 
You  see  how  they  serve  equally  to  overthrow  entirely  your 
System  of  reconcilement  (wliich  you  are  almost  swallowed  up 
with)  as  well  as  all  your  arguments  that  follow  in  the  same 
place. 

§  6.  New  let  your  very  best  method  of  reconcilement  be 
compared  with  this,  which  is  drawn  out  at  leugth  in  the 
lattcr  Dissertation^  but  which  I  will  here  summarily  set 
before  you,  Icaving  the  reader  to  decide  freely  which  is  to  be 
preferred.  With  you  I  allow  that  the  state  of  the  question 
in  the  two  Apostles  is  quite  difi'erent,  but  I  contend  that  tliis 
diflPerence  is  to  be  explained  far  otherwise  than  is  done  by 
you.  St.  Paul  in  his  discussions  had  to  deal  with  adversaries 
who  were  not  all  of  the  same  kind.  At  one  time  he  disputes 
against  the  professed  enemies  of  the  Gospel,  viz.  both  the 
Gontiles,  and  most  especially  the  Jews,  who  Avere  strangers 
to  the  faith  in  Christ,  the  former  of  whom  trusted  in  the  law 
of  natui-e,  the  lattcr  in  the  schooling  of  their  law,  while  both 


in  discussion,  and  two  main  arguments.  141 

despised  the  Gospel  of  Christ.     Against  these  the  Apostle  s  T  R  l  C. 

shews  bj  more  arguments  than  one  tliat  neitlier  of  tlieir  laws '- — 

is  sufficient  to  justify  a  sinner  and  l^ad  hira  to  salvation; 
that  the  Gospel  of  Christ  alone  could  do  this ;  for  the  proof 
of  this  assertion  he  brings  forward  mainly  two  great  argu- 
ments. 1.  That,  whereas  all  men  are  sinners,  and  are  liable 
to  God's  wrath  on  account  of  their  sins,  by  neither  of  these 
laws  is  there  any  certain  way  shewn  of  obtaining  forgiveness. 
As  to  the  law  of  nature,  it  is  piain,  since  it  is  destitute  of  all 
Divine  promise  :  whence  the  Gentiles  are  said  by  the  Apostle 
to  be  "strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise,  having  no  Eph.2.12. 
hope."  As  regards  the  la\y  of  Moses  delivered  on  jNIount 
Sinai,  the  Apostle  shews  that  by  that  law,  if  it  be  viewed 
carnally  and  according  to  the  letter,  (under  which  considera- 
tion  alone  he  denies  justification  to  it;  since  spmtually 
understood  it  was  nothing  eise  than  the  Gospel  itself 
shadowed  out  in  types,)  a  remission  indeed  is  promised,  but 
that  neither  füll  nor  perfect,  i.  e.  neither  remission  of  all 
sins,  nor  remission  of  any  sin  which  frees  a  man  from  internal 
guilt  and  is  joined  with  the  gift  of  eternal  life :  on  the  other 
hand,  in  the  Gospel,  that  the  true  and  only  'propitiation'  is 
openly  displayed  and  set  forth  by  God  before  men,  riz.  His 
Son  Jesus  Christ,  who  by  the  shedding  of  His  blood,  most 
precious  in  the  sight  of  God,  hath  obtained  real  remission  of 
sins  for  all  who  truly  repent ;  and  so  in  the  Gospel  not  a 
temporal  only,  but  '  eternal  redemption  and  salvation,^  (Heb. 
V.  9,  and  ix.  12).  The  most  füll  and  perfect  remission  of  all 
sins,  even  the  most  grievous,  joined  with  the  gift  of  eternal 
life,  is  promised  to  all  who  by  faith  in  Christ  heartily  repent 
of  those  sins,  and  devote  themselves  for  the  future  to  God 
and  a  holy  life.  2.  Another  argument  of  the  Apostle  is  of  this 
kind, — that  since  all  men  are  by  nature  weak  and  wholl}" 
powerless,  and  cannot  by  their  native  strength  break  off  the 
dominion  of  sin,  much  less  perform  true  holiness  and  righte- 
Gusness  acceptable  to  God  unto  salvation :  and  since  it  is 
repugnant  to  Divine  Justice  and  Holiness  to  forgive  any  one 
his  sins  and  confer  on  him  eternal  life  who  is  not  purged 
from  vices,  nay  who  is  not  partaker  in  some  degrcc  of  "  the 
Divine  nature ;"  there  is  need  of  the  most  effectual  grace  of 
God   in    this   matter,  which   is    adrainistered    through   the 


142  Valvation  promised  by  the  Gospel,  but  not 

s  T  R I  c.  Gospel  of  Christ  alone,  "  the  ministrv  of  the  spirit,  the  law 

XV  ...  ' 

^ —  of  the  spirit  of  life^.  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation."     This 

I  have  explained  at  l^^h  in  my  latter  Dissertation.  Now 
here  the  true  and  genuine  State  of  the  question  is  clearly 
Seen,  riz.  "whether  a  sinner  (^an  enemy  towai'ds  God,  and 
weak/  Rom.  v.  (j,  10.}  can  be  justüied  and  brought  to  salva- 
tion  by  any  other  means  than  those  shewn  and  prescribed  in 
the  Gospel  of  Christ  V  In  tnith,  the  Apostle  is  not  treating 
precisely  of  this  er  that  particolar  benefit,  as  regards  cur 
salvation,  (as  some  have  fancied.)  but  of  the  whole  and  entire 
economy  of  human  salvation,  which  he  denies  can  be  pro- 
cured  by  any  other  means  than  those  revealed  in  the  Gospel. 
This  means  he  calls  ^faith/  for  the  very  weighty  reasons  we 
have  so  often  mentioned.  But  he  who  can  persuade  himself 
that  St.  Paul  in  so  laborious  a  discussion  was  trying  to  shew 
that  by  faith  alone,  as  a  single  virtue,  and  distinct  from  all 
other  Gospel  virtues,  and  not  even  by  any  act  of  faith,  but 
that  pecuhar  act  which  is  called  '  rehance  /  by  faith  '  which 
is'  alive,  but  not  ^as  it  is'  alive;  lastly,  by  faith,  as  by  an 
instrument,  laying  hold  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  and 
making  it  really  ours,  that  thus  a  man  is  justified :  what  'will 
not  such  a  man  dream?  surely  these  vain  subtilties  and 
refinements  of  words,  as  they  by  no  means  agreed  with  the 
spirit  of  that  most  wise  and  divinely  inspired  Apostle,  so  had 
they  been  most  remote  from  his  aim  and  pm^Dose.  Such  a 
harvest  of  subtilties  was  neither  sown  nor  reaped  by  the 
opponeots  with  whom  St.  Paul  disputed :  inasmuch  as  they 
rejected  the  whole  way  of  obtaining  salvation  prescribed  in 
the  Gospel. 

§  7.  Besides  these  there  were  also  other  opponents,  whom 
St.  Paul  (and  that  especially)  opposed,  viz.  the  Judaizing 
Christians,  who  joined  the  ceremonies  of  the  Mosaic  law,  as 
though  they  were  necessary  to  be  obsened  for  salvation,  with 
the  faith  of  Christ  or  the  Gospel.  Against  this  the  Apostle 
inveighs  both  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  also  especially 
in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  Against  these  he  builds  this 
conclusion :  "  In  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth 
any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  faith  perfected  by  love,'' 
Gal.  V.  6;  with  which  another  passage  must  be  corapared, 
Gal.  \-i.  15.  "lu  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth 


by  the  Mosaic  law. — St.  James's  opponents.  143 

any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature ;"  in  Christ  s  T  R  l  c. 

Jesus,  i.  e.  according  to  the  law  of  Christ  or  the  Gospel,  cir '■ — 

curacision  and  all  the  other  Mosaic  ritcs  avail  nothing  to 
justification  and  salvation :  the  entire  and  only  condition  for 
man's  justification  and  salvation  required  in  the  Gospel 
covenant  is  'faith  perfected  by  love'  or  'a  new  creature/ 
Hcre  the  Apostle  fully  expresses  the  condition  of  the  Gospel 
covenant.  Here  also  the  state  of  the  question  is  piain,  viz. 
"  whethcr  the  mcans  of  obtaining  salvation  prescribed  in  the 
Gospel  is  sufficient  of  itself  and  without  the  obscrvance  of 
the  Mosaic  rites  ?"  As  often  thcn  as  St.  Paul  opposing  these 
adversaries  (which  is  generally  the  case)  affirms  that  a  man 
is  justified  by  faith  without  the  works  of  the  law,  it  is  most 
evident  that  faith  is  opposed  by  him  not  to  the  other  virtues 
of  the  Gospel,  but  to  the  Mosaic  rites :  consequently  that  it 
is  put  by  metonymy  or  synecdoche  for  that  universal  Spiri- 
tual righteousness  prescribed  in  the  Gospel,  and  opposed  to 
the  carnal  ceremonies  of  the  old  law.  But  if  metonymy  or 
synecdoche  must  here  necessarily  be  admitted,  what  is  there 
that  should  make  us  unwilling  to  believe  that  the  Apostle 
has  used  the  samc  figure  elsewhcre  ?  Thus  you  have  the  state 
of  the  question  with  St.  Paul  (unless  I  am  grcatly  deccived) 
clearly  explained. 

§  8.  As  regards  St.  James,  the  opponents  with  whom  he  is 
engaged  (as  I  have  often  remarked)  are  those  outrageous 
Antinomians,  the  followers  of  Simon,  who  interpreted 
St.  Paul's  doctrine  falsely,  and  perverting  it  to  their  ovm.  and 
others'  dcstruction,  taught  that  faith  alone  is  sufficient  for 
man's  justification  without  that  love  which  produces  good 
works.  To  the  pestilent  doctrine  of  these  men,  the  Apostle 
opposes  as  it  were  its  own  antithesis,  viz.  that  'by  works  a 
man  is  justified,  and  not  by  faith  only."  But  he  speaks 
plainly  of  works  not  (as  St.  Paul)  opposed  to  faith,  but  pro- 
ceeding  from  faith  co-operating  with  and  pcrfccting  it,  eh.  ii. 
ver.  22 ;  and  thcrefore,  here  the  state  of  the  question  is  un- 
questionably  this :  "  Whethcr,  according  to  the  Gospel  cove- 
nant, faith  alone,  as  a  single  virtue,  is  sufficient,  without  other 
virtues  and  good  works,  to  a  man's  justification?"  The 
Simonists  affirraed  it,  abusing  the  authority  of  St.  Paul,  to 
Support  their  own  hypothesis.     But  the  side  of  the  question 


144  Meaning  qf  the  ivord  'faith.' 


s  T  R I  c.  which    denies    it    (whicli    is    ours)    is    avowedly  taken    by 
St.  James,  who  besi 
St.  PauFs  meaning. 


XV 

— '- —  St.  James,  who  best  knew  both  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  and 


STRICTURE  XYI. 

ON  IL  DISS.  iv.  4.  p.  57. 

Here,  before  laying  down  the  principles  of  that  method  by 
which  I  considered  St.  James  should  be  reconciled  with 
St.  Paul,  I  explained  my  opinion  in  the  following  words  : 
"First,  then,  we  must  enquire  what  St.  Paul  means  by  the 
Word  'faith.'  The  answer  which  we  have  before  given  in 
brief  to  this  question,  we  shall  here  more  largely  explain  and 
demonstrate.  Paith,  then,  to  which  justification  is  attributed 
by  St.  Paul,  is  not  to  be  understood  as  one  single  virtue,  but 
denotes  the  whole  condition  of  the  Gospel  covenant,  that  is, 
comprehends  in  one  word  all  the  works  of  Christian  piety : 
for  Zegerus  rightly  observes ;  '  Absolute  and  perfect  faith,  of 
which  most  frequent  mention  is  made  in  Scripture,  is  that 
by  which  we  not  only  believe  there  is  a  God,  but  also  by 
believing  in  Hirn  with  truly  pious  affections  we  approach  to 
God,  and  feel  ourselves  dependent  on  Hirn.  And  this  word 
unites  in  its  meaning  hope,  charity,  and  good  works  :'  and  he 
adds ;  '  It  ought,  therefore,  to  be  observed  that  wherever 
St.  Paul  and  the  other  sacred  writers  attribute  justification, 
salvation,  life,  and  the  like,  to  faith,  they  speak  of  a  faith 
lively  and  perfect,'  that  is,  one  which  includes  hope,  charity, 
and  good  works."  To  this  you  answer:  "Zegerus's  words 
are  absurd ;  the  principle  too  which  you  lay  down  is  most 
false.  I  will  use  only  one  argumcnt :  St.  Paul  makes  justi- 
fication on  our  part  depend  on  one  thing  alone,  faith  in 
the  blood  of  Christ  without  works.  Will  any  one  in  his 
senses  suppose  that  when  St.  Paul  says  that  a  man  is  justi- 
fied  by  faith  without  works,  he  means,  by  faith  with  works  ? 
And  he  is  speaking  of  works  which  the  moral  law,  confirmed 
by  the  Gospel,  demands,  and  which  Abraham  did  as  well 
from  fear  as  from  love  of  God.  These  are  the  very  works 
which  St.  Paul,  in  words  clcarer  than  the  light,  separates 
from  the  justification  of  a  sinncr  by  the  grace  of  God  and 
righteousncss  of  Christ.     And  this  'faitli  in   the  blood'  of 


The  question  begged,  but  not  proved.  145 

Christ,  (Rom.  iii.  25,)  on  which  our  justification  in  God's  siglit  s  T  R I C. 
depends,  is  (not  as  he  in  Plutarch  said)  a  swarm  of  virtues,  — -^Xii_ 
but  one   single  vü'tue,   which  as  the  Apostle  most    clearly  ^^tX. 
sets  forth,  is  in  a  peculiar  manner  exereised  on  one  object. 
Habits,  von  know,  take  their  oneness  from  their  objects^ 
The  object  of  justifying  faith  is  the  blood  of  Christ :  not  the 
truth  of  the  word  which  is  the  object  of  credence,  but  the 
obedience  of  Christ  which  is  the  object  of  confidence." 


ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XVI. 

§  1.  This  is  the  old  story.  They  talk  most  absurdly,  who- 
ever  they  are  that  say  a  word  out  of  tune  with  your 
absm'dities.  However,  I  have  most  clearly  proved  the  point 
in  which  you  say  Zegerus  is  most  absurd.  Why  do  you  not 
answer  those  arguments  ?  Surely  because  you  are  not  able, 
nor  ever  wül  be.  For  they  are  so  conclusive,  that  by  their 
vjilue  I  would  willingly  let  any  sensible  and  unprejudiced 
person  judge  of  and  so  put  an  end  to  the  whole  of  the  con- 
troversy  which  exists  between  us.  Now  to  prove  your  cen- 
sure,  (which  by  the  way  is  no  proof  of  good  judgment,  but  of 
the  greatest  rashness,)  you  say  you  will  use  only  one  argu- 
ment.  And  yet  this  one  is  either  made  up  of  many,  or  it  is 
no  argument  at  all.  But  come,  let  us  examine  your  words 
singly,  and  see  where  this  one  argument  lies  concealed. 

§  2.  First,  you  say  "  St.  Paul  makes  justification  on  our 
part  depend  on  one  thing  alone,  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ 
without  works."  But  this  is  no  argument  but  mere  begging 
the  question,  your  usual  way  of  reasoning  :  for  when  I  prove 
in  many  wa3^s  that  faith,  as  a  single  virtue,  is  not  the  only 
thing  on  our  part  on  which  justification  depends,  you  invari- 
ably  answer  me  by  denying  the  conclusion,  not  paying  the 
slightest  regard  to  the  premises,  unworthy  I  conclude  of  the 
consideration  of  such  a  strenuous  disputer.  You  say  the 
Apostle  makcs  faith  the  only  thing  on  which  justification  on 
our  part  depends.  Tliis  you  inculcate  and  repeat  a  hundred 
times  :  as  if  you  intendcd  at  any  rate  to  crush  your  Opponent 

f  Vid.   S.  Th.    Aquin.  Trim.   \Ux.    9.  1.  ant.  3.  1».    1«.  ant.  2.  and   9.  .'54. 
ant.  2. 

BULL.  £ 


146  Carelessness  of  the  Censurer. —  What  ivorks 

STRIC.  by  repetition  whom  von  caimot  refute  by  argument.     You 

— '—  appear  to  be  nailecl  to  tliis  hj'pothesis  as  Prometheus  was  to 

the  rock.  And  so  3'ou  are  not  ashamed  to  say  openly  some- 
where  in  your  remarks  that  you  will  deny  even  to  death  ray 
opinion,  namely  that  '  faith  is  used  in  this  argument  by 
St.  Paul  metonymically  or  synecdochally.'  But,  I  pray,  Sir^ 
if  you  are  determined  to  grow  old  and  so  die  in  your  folly 
■where  will  there  be  any  remedy  ? 

"  To  save  a  man  that  is  unwilling 
Is  really  just  as  bad  as  killing^." 

§  3.  But  I  will  go  on  following  you  step  by  step.  Perhaps 
your  one  argument  is  hid  under  these  words  :  "  Will  any  one 
in  his  senses  suppose  that  when  St.  Paul  says  a  man  is 
justified  by  faith  without  works,  he  means,  by  faith  with 
works?"  Arguing  forsooth  from  an  absurdity.  But  you 
have  charged  ine  with  this  absurdity  at  your  own  pleasure^  by 
explaining  my  words  too  baldly.  What  I  maintain  is  this  : 
that  when  St.  Paul  says  "  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without 
works/^  he  means^  a  man  is  justified  by  the  faith  of  the 
Gospel  with  obedience  proceeding  from  the  same,  without  the 
works  of  the  law,  which  St.  Paul  himself  continually  declares. 
And  so  I  afiirm  that  St.  James  in  teaching  that  "  a  man  is 
justified  by  works,  not  by  faith  only/^  does  not  in  any  way 
contradict  St.  Paul :  because  St.  James  meaus  works  pro- 
ceeding from  faith,  or  works  which  St.  Paul  includes  in  the 
Word  faith,  and  not  works  of  the  law,  which  he  excludes. 
What  is  there  absurd  in  all  this  ?  Though  you  strain  every 
nerve  of  your  ingenuity  you  will  never  find  a  better  way  of 
explaining  this  contradiction. 

§  4.  You  go  on :  "  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  works  which  the 
moral  law  confirmed  by  the  Gospel  demands."  I  answer :  I 
never  denied  that  even  the  works  of  the  moral  law  were 
excluded  by  St.  Paul  in  a  certain  sense  from  justifica- 
tion,  but  have  avowcdly  maintained  and  supported  this  by 
several  clear  passages  from  St.  Paul,  II.  Diss.  vii.  2.  p.  77. 
So  that  it  is  piain  from  this,  how  very  inattentively,  or  which 
is  worse,  with  what  bad  fecling  you  must  have  read  my  book, 
when  you  so  confidently  charge  me  with  the  coutrary  opiniou. 

If  Hör,,  Ars  Poet.  IGT. 


St.  Paul  eoecludes  from  justification.  147 

I  added  this  in  tlie  same  place.     "The  works  of  the  moral  STRic. 

law  are  not  excluded  from  justification  by  St.  Paul^  simply  as  -^ :— 

such,  but  only  so  far  as  they  are  required  in  the  Mosaic 
covenant,  and  are  part  of  the  condition  annexed  to  that  cove- 
nant;  in  a  word,  so  far  only  as  they  may  be  considered 
separate  from  evangelical  grace."  I  explain  this  in  the  same 
Dissertation  as  follows.  1.  St.  Paul  excludes  wholly  and 
entirely  those  works  of  the  moral  law  which  a  man  might  do 
by  the  help  of  the  law  alone,  that  is,  by  his  own  streu gth, 
without  the  all-efficacious  grace  of  Christ,  which  the  law,  as 
far  as  it  is  viewed  by  St.  Paul,  never  held  out.  Since  such 
works  as  tliese,  whatever  they  are,  conduce  in  no  way  towards 
true  righteousness,  and  have  no  supernatural  goodness  in 
them.  3.  St.  Paul  excludes  all  works  whatever,  even  of  the 
moral  law,  although  rightly  done,  and  endued  with  super- 
natural goodness,  thus  far,  in  that  he  maintains  that  no  one 
under  the  Mosaic  covenant  could  obtain  true  justification  by 
them,  because  it  proposes  no  true  justification,  that  is,  such 
as  is  uuited  with  the  gift  of  eternal  life.  I  add,  that  this 
great  blessiug  comes  from  the  covenant  of  grace  alone,  con- 
firmed  by  the  blood  of  the  Mediator.  By  which  words  I 
mean,  that  our  best  works  deserve  nothing  of  God,  and  are 
by  themselves  of  no  efficacy  towards  justification  or  salvation, 
without  the  Intervention  of  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  our 
Saviom*.  I  said  the  same  in  recapitulating  the  Apostle's 
argument  (II.  Diss.  xviii.  2.  p.  194.)  ''  St.  Paul  rejects  from 
justification  the  following  descriptions  of  works  :  Ist,  Ritual 
works  prescribed  by  the  ceremonial  law.  2ndly,  INIoral  works 
performed  by  the  natural  powers  of  man,  in  a  state  eithcr  of 
the  law  or  mere  nature,  before  and  without  the  grace  of  the 
Gospel.  3rdly,  Jewish  works,  or  that  trifling  righteousness 
inculcated  by  the  Jewish  masters.  4thly,  and  lastly,  all 
works  separate  from  Christ  the  Mediator,  which  would  obtain 
eternal  salvation  by  their  own  power,  or  without  reference  to 
the  covenant  of  grace  established  by  the  blood  of  Christ." 
Who  in  his  senses  can  deny  that  there  is  here  a  füll  euumera- 
tion  ofthose  works  Avhich  St.  Paul  excludes  from  justification  ? 
Nevertheless,  as  you  compel  me,  I  will  endeavour  to  explain 
the  whole  matter  more  clearly,  if  indeed  that  is  possible. 
St.  Paul  in  treating  of  the  causcs  of  our  justification,  is 

L  2 


non 


148  The  tiL'o  causes  of  our  jusüfication. 

s  T  R I  c.  speaking  (to  say  notliing  of  the  primary  cause  wliicli    all 

:—  acknowledge   is   in   the   great   mercy  of  God)   eitlier,  Ist, 

of  the  initiative  and  meritorious  cause,  or  2ndly,  of  tlie 
sine  qua  indispensable  cause  or  condition  required  on  our  part. 
Witli  regard  to  the  meritorious  cause  St.  Paul  excludes  all 
works  of  men  of  everj^  kind,  and  likewise  faith  itself,  attri- 
buting  such  a  causality  in  the  work  of  justification  solely  to 
the  propitiatory  sacrifice  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Hence 
we  are  said  by  St.  Paul,  (Rom.  iii.  24,)  to  be  "justified  fi'eely 
by  His  grace,  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ;" 
and  Rom.  v.  9,  "being  justified  in  His  blood,"  and  in  the 
nineteenth  verse,  '^  made  righteous  by  His  obedience."  This 
I  profess  before  God  with  all  my  heart  against  Socinus  aud 
his  foUowers,  whose  plainly  heretical  dogmas,  utterly  opposed 
to  the  consent  of  the  Catholic  Cliurch,  no  one  living  can 
ablior  more  than  myself;  and  it  should  be  matter  of  shame 
and  regret  to  yourself  and  otliers  like  you,  that  you  have 
aspersed  me  with  this  taint  of  Sociuianism,  which  nothing 
can  ever  wash  a^ay :  and  Avith  equal  siucerity  I  protest 
against  those  Roman  Catholics  (with  whom  you  somewhere 
class  me)  who,  while  they  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  lias 
merited  all  things  for  us  by  His  own  obedience,  do  not 
hesitate  from  some  madness  that  has  seized  them,  to  attri- 
bute  merit  properly  so  called,  or  as  they  say  merit  of  con- 
dignity,  to  our  works  taken  by  themselves,  and  without 
reference  to  the  most  gracious  covenant  of  the  Gospel :  which 
opinion  eveu  the  Socinians  abhor.  With  regard  to  the  causa 
sine  qua  non,  or  indispensable  condition  required  on  our  part, 
St.  Paul  declares  that  a  man  "  is  justified  by  faith  without 
the  works  of  the  law.^'  Here  I  confidently  afiirm  (which  also 
I  have  proved  by  most  unexceptionable  ai'guments)  that 
St.  Paul  does  not  oppose  faith  to  other  evangelical  vii'tues, 
which  proceed  from  it,  and  are  wont  to  follow  it,  but  only  (as 
he  expresses  it)  to  works  of  the  law.  For  who  can  suppose 
that  the  Apostle  meant  by  works  of  the  law  evangelical 
works,  that  is,  those  which  flow  from  faith  aud  the  grace  of 
the  Gospel,  and  are  done  according  to  its  command  ?  espe- 
cially  when  it  is  quite  piain  that  in  this  argument  the  law 
is  always  contradistinguished  from  and  so  opposed  to  the 
Gospel.     I  must  again  teil  my  reader  that  I  have  refuted 


The  text  of  Rom.  üi.  25.  considered.  149 

statcdly  at  length  tlie  objection  which  you  add  concerning  STRic. 
the  works  of  Abraham,  (II.  Diss.  xii.  p.  lüO).  _^VL — 

§  5.  But  perhaps  this  one  argument  of  yours  is  yet  to  be 
sougbt  for,  viz.  in  tliat  famous  passage  Rom.  iii.  25,  where 
mcution  is  made  of  "  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ :"  for  you 
appear  to  have  thought  that  St.  Paul  intended  iu  that  passage 
a  certain  special  faith,  which  has  iu  itself  a  justifying  power, 
or  which  necessarily  involves  justificatiou :  that  my  conjec- 
ture  is  not  altogether  grouudless,  may  appear  from  this,  that 
from  tliis  passage  you  yourself  preseutly  conclude  that  the 
special  object  of  'justifying^  faith,  as  such,  is  the  blood  of 
Christ;  and  your  father  also,  whose  notes  you  borrow,  does 
the  same.  For  in  liis  second  epistle  to  Baxter,  I  read  these 
words  :  "That  form  of  speaking,  'faith  or  confidence  in  the 
blood  of  Christ,'  seems  to  hint  that  this  virtue,  beyond  all 
others,  has  a  more  special  relation  to  the  satisfaction  made  to 
the  justice  of  God  for  our  sins,  by  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
which  alone  can  be  alleged  by  us  before  the  judgment  seat  of 
God  for  our  absolution  from  those  sins."  Ilere  I  will  apply 
with  trutli  your  own  words  :  "  one-eyed  people  see  many 
things  which  do  not  exist."  Both  you  and  your  father 
(begging  youi'  pardon)  have  thoroughly  misuuderstood  the 
whole  passage  :  it  runs  :  "  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a 
propitiation  through  faith  in  His  blood  :"  where  if  a  close 
attention  is  given  to  the  passage,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
words  "  in  His  blood"  are  not  to  be  referred  to  '  faith'  but  to 
'  propitiation,'  so  that  the  verse  does  not  declare  the  special 
object  of  faith,  but  the  metliod  of  propitiation  made  by  Christ, 
thus  :  ''"Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  by  Ilis 
blood  through  faith."  The  reasons  for  this  interpretation 
are  as  foUow  :  Ist.  The  very  construction  of  the  words  is  re- 
pugnant  to  your  interpretation  :  if  the  Apostle  liad  meant 
what  you  fancy,  he  would  have  said  hiä  t»)?  iricrTew'i  rrj'i  eh  to 
avTov  olfMU,  ''through  faith  which  is  in  His  blood."  Now 
in  the  fii'st  place,  the  ai'ticle  ri]<;  before  the  prcposition  is 
wanting,  and  secondly,  the  prcposition  is  not  et?,  but  iv. 
Bcsides,  (as  Partus  has  observed  from  Beza,)  in  all  the  MSS. 
the  pronoun  avrov  is  read  with  the  aspirate  and  not  the  soft 
breathiug,  so  that  it  answers  to  eavTov,  and  shews  that  the 
words  iv  aifj,aTi  avrov, '  in  His  own  blood,'  niust  necessarily  be 


150  The  phrcise  'faith  in  blood'  uncommon 

S  T  R I C.  joined  with  iXaa-rjjpiov.  VTho  does  not  see  the  solecism  in 
•^^^'  these  words  '  by  faith  in  His  o\m  blood  r'  Piscator,  who  was 
well  versed  in  the  Greek  language,  saw  that  yonr  interpret- 
ation  laboured  under  these  difficnlties,  and  yet  (whicb  is  to  be 
wondered  at)  gave  bis  approval  to  it.  For  in  his  scholia  on 
the  passage  Eiu  rijq  iruneoj'i  iv  rm  aifuiri  avrov,  he  says  :  ''  I 
certainly  think  that  avrov  must  be  read  instead  of  avrov:  and 
that  there  is  an  ellipse  of  the  article  t/}?  before  the  preposition 
iv,  which  must  be  supphed  from  the  preceding  words,  and 
therefore  iv  is  put  for  ek  :  lastly,  the  comma  after  the  word 
'  fiiith'  must  be  Struck  out.  It  wül  be  clearer  if  you  say  per 
fidem  in  sanguine  Ipsias,  '  by  faith  in  His  blood.' "  But  what 
is  this  but  wresting  the  sacred  text  to  support  our  o\rn  pre- 
conceived  notions?  2ndly.  The  phrase  'faith  in  blood/  if 
you  attend  to  the  meaning^  is  harsh  and  uncommon,  The 
blood  of  Christ  is  never  either  by  St.  Paul  or  the  other  sacred 
writers  connected  with  our  faith  as  its  special  object,  but 
always  with  words  which  sigmiy  the  propitiation,  reconciha- 
tion,  or  redemption  which  Christ  has  made  for  us  :  and  that 
too  so  as  to  declare  the  method  of  such  propitiation,  recon- 
cüiation,  or  redemption.  This  must  be  evident  to  any  one 
who  has  paid  the  least  attention  to  Holy  Scripture;  see  for 
instance,  Eph.  i.  7 ;  Col.  i.  14;  Heb.  ix.  12,  13,  14,  18—22. 
3rdly.  In  the  last  place,  the  words  5td  r?}?  Tr/crreto?  are  not 
in  the  exceilent  Alexandriau  manuscript :  and  St.  Chrysostom 
does  not  read  them.  But  what  need  is  there  of  many  words 
in  so  clear  a  case?  K  I  were  a  Socinian,  I  would  most 
wiUingly  accept  and  embrace  with  open  arms  your  version  of 
the  passage,  since  it  agrees  most  excellently  with  the  teach- 
ing  of  Socinus.  For  he  explains  at  length  and  in  a  way 
wonderfuUy  at  variance  with  the  words  and  intent  of  Holy 
Scripture,  all  those  passages  in  which  a  connection  of  the 
blood  or  the  death  of  Christ  with  the  remission  of  sins 
obtained  for  us,  is  expressed.  He  is  especially  fond  of  one 
of  these  explanations  above  all  other,  and  so  he  continually 
inculcates  this,  as  if  it  were  the  very  foundation  of  his  cause. 
It  is  this,  that  the  death  of  Christ  persuades  us  to  the  very 
thing  which  is  required  for  the  remission  of  our  sins,  that  is, 
faith,  or  as  Socinus  would  say,  the  hope  of  obtaining  ever- 
lasting  life.     Now  what  can  agree  better  with  this  explana- 


in  Holy  Scripture.     Socinian  intet'pretation.  151 

tion  tliau  yoiu'  versiou  of  the  passasje^  wliich  woiild  refer  tlie  s  T  R  i  c. 

words  ''  in  Ilis  blood"  not  to  tlie  propitiation  made  for  iis  by  — '- — 

Christ  but  to  oiir  Mtli  ?  See  now  liow  tnie  is  what  I  say ; 
Grotiiis  in  bis  postbiimons  annotations  (in  wbicb  I  grieve  to  say 
he  too  rauch  delights  in  Socinian  interpretations),  thus  inter- 
prets  the  passagc :  "  The  word  ikaari'ipiov,  m33  in  the  Old 
Testament,  meant  the  covcr  of  the  ai"k,  upon  which  a  cloud  frora 
God  nsed  to  rest,  which  assui'ed  the  people  of  God's  favour 
toward  them  :  see  Lev.  xvi.  2 ;  Num.  vii.  89.  So  also  God  by 
ratifring  the  prayers  of  Christ,  and  for  their  sake  sendiug 
the  Spirit  upon  the  Apostles^  (John  xiv.  16,)  shewed  His  good 
will  towai'ds  mankind :  but  when  He  adds,  '  hj  faitli,'  He 
shews  the  way  in  which  a  man  may  obtain  the  efFect  of 
that  good  will,  that  is,  true  rigliteousness,  nameh'',  '  by 
having  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ/  i,  e,  in  the  doctrine 
ratified  by  the  blood  of  Christ  in  the  same  way  as  treaties 
were  wont  to  be  ratified  by  blood." 

I  have  dwelt  louger  on  this  discussion  not  because  your 
objecticn  was  of  so  great  weight,  but  because  I  thought  it 
worth  while  to  give  the  true  explauation  of  this  much  con- 
tested  passage  of  the  Apostle.  For  supposing  we  were  to 
graut  that  the  Apostle  had  used  this  harsh  phrase,  which  is 
found  no  where  eise  in  Scripture, '  faith  in  blood,'  what  would 
youi"  cause  gain  by  ifc  ?  not  oue  jot.  For  then  faith  in  blood 
would  be  nothing  eise  but  that  faith  by  which  we  believe 
that  Christ  poured  out  His  own  blood  for  the  expiation  of 
our  sins,  and  at  the  same  time  have  confideuce  that  God  the 
Father  will  for  the  sake  of  the  outpouring  of  Ilis  Son's  blood 
be  propitious  to  us  if  we  repcnt.  Now  it  is  quite  clear  that 
this  faith  cannot  attain  the  effect  of  justification,  unless  it 
bring  fortli  a  true  and  fruitful  repentance. 

§  6.  I  agree  in  what  you  say  about  faith  not  being  a 
swarm  of  virtues  but  a  single  virtue.  For  faith,  as  I  have 
already  observed  (I.  Diss.  iv.  5.  p.  24),  both  in  St.  PauFs 
Epistles  and  the  other  Scriptiu'cs  of  the  New  Testament, 
when  viewed  by  itsclf,  is  nothing  more  than  the  same  kiud 
of  asscnt  as  that  by  which  we  believe  in  the  sufteriugs,  death, 
and  resiuTcction  of  Christ  for  us,  and  that  conscquently  all 
things  are  true  which  Hc  has  delivered  to  us  in  the  name 
of  God,  eithcr  l)y  promiscs  or  commands  :  this  I  have  proved 


152  Zuinglius  cited  to  prwe  that 

STRIC.  by   many   passages,    (see   especially   Rom.  iv.  20,  21,    24; 

"^^   •     Heb.  xi.   1 ;  1  John  v,  4,  5;  John  viii.  24).     But  notwith- 

standing  this,  I  say  (which  I  have  also  supported  by  the 
strongest  proofs)  that  St.  Paul  when  he  attributes  justifica- 
tion  to  faith,  does  not  consider  it  as  a  single  vii'tue,  but  as  a 
swarm  of  ^irtues,  afirivo<i  dpercov,  and  surrounded  as  it  were 
by  the  Tvhole  concourse  of  evangehcal  virtues,  that  is,  faith 
perfected  by  love,  ivepyov/jcevTjv  St'  dya-mj^;,  ■svhich  is  the 
mother  of  all  other  ^■irtues.  This  is  piain  even  from  those 
passages  of  Holy  Scriptm^e  in  which  the  Apostle  describes 
the  Single  virtue  of  faith,  which  he  explains  by  assent ;  and 
all  will  acknowledge  that  there  is  no  justification  or  salvation 
attached  to  a  bare  assent.  If  von  had  read  my  work  vriih 
any  attention  you  would  have  seen  that  I  had  anticipated 
your  objection,  and  in  this  very  chapter.  (II.  Diss.  iv.  10. 
p.  63).  I  have  shewn  in  the  examinatiou  of  Stricture  XIII. 
how  very  frivolous  is  the  fine-di'awn  distinction  which  you 
make  between  the  object  of  behef  and  that  of  confidence  or 
justifying  faith. 

§  7.  I  might  here,  by  way  of  conclusion,  put  together  a 
very  large  collection  of  authorities  from  the  works  of  re- 
formed  divines,  who  understood  the  faith  to  which  St.  Paul 
attributes  justification  in  its  complex  sense,  that  is,  so  far  as 
it  involves  in  its  idea  love,  which  is  the  mother  of  all  good 

lib,  iü.       works.     This  is  so  well  known   that   the  Roman  Catholic 

dist.  23.  Estius,  a  ■svriter  of  great  judgment  and  honesty,  objects 
against  most  of  our  writers  for  saying  that  '  faith  and  love 
are  the  same  thing  :'  but  though  I  am  unwilling  to  weary 
both  the  reader  and  myself  with  quotations  from  so  many 
authors,  still  I  cannot  forbear  bringing  forward  the  testi- 
mony  of  a  celebrated  man  amongst  the  early  reformers, 
HuldiTch  Zuinglius'»,  who  writes  as  follows ;  "  All  works  are 
the  fruits  either  of  piet}'  or  the  flesh :  for  if  you  are  religi- 
ous,  you  aim  at  those  things  from  faith,  which  faith  dictates. 
For  God  is  in  him  who  has  faith,  and  he  in  God.  But  let 
no  one  say  that  what  you  attribute  to  faith  is  of  love.  It 
must  be  observed  that  '  faith'  has  various  meanings  in  Holy 
Scripture :  first  credence,  then  fii*mness,  and  then  confidence 

*•  Commentar.  de  vera  et  falsa  Religione,  cap.  de  Merito,  pp.  341,  342.  edit. 
Tigur.  [p.  224.  ed.  1581.  vol.  ü.] 


faiih  includes  love  and  good  ivorks.  153 

in  God ;  and  we  must  understand  it  of  this  latter  only  s  T  n  l  c, 
when  it  is  said  that  faith  saves  a  man.  They  wlio  do  not  '  ^  ' 
here  understand  that  faitbj  hope^  and  charity  are  tlie  same 
thing,  \\z.  tliis  confidence  in  God,  must  needs  pass  over 
many  difficulties  in  Holy  Scripture  unexplained.  This  will  be 
piain  from  the  passages  '  We  are  saved  by  hope/  Rom.  Wii.  24 ; 
and  Rom.  iv.  5,  '  His  (i.  e.  the  believer's)  faitli  is  counted  for 
righteousness  •'  if  therefore  hope  saves,  and  faith  saves,  faith 
and  hope  must  be  the  same  thing.  Nor  let  it  cause  surprise 
that  hope  is  spoken  of  sometimes  in  a  diflferent  way  to  faith. 
For  then  faith  does  not  mean  confidence  in  God,  but  either 
any  kind  of  belief,  or  firmness,  or  truth.  '  But  God  is  love : 
and  he  that  dwelleth  in  love,  dwelleth  in  God,  and  God  in 
him,'  1  John  iv.  16.  And,  'He  that  eateth  My  flesh,  and 
drinketh  My  blood,  dwelleth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him,'  John  vi. 
56 ;  that  is,  he  Avho  believes  that  Christ  has  suffered  for  us, 
dwells  in  Christ  and  Christ  in  him.  Therefore  faith  and  love 
must  be  the  same  thing.  And  no  one  need  be  startled  and 
afraid  that  these  three  Diriue  virtues  are  confused  by  us. 
For  we  have  been  taught  by  Holy  Scripture  that  unless  each 
of  these  virtues  be  the  same  as  the  others,  it  is  nothing,  not 
to  say  no  virtue  at  all.  If  you  believe  in  Christ,  but  neither 
hope  in,  nor  love  Him,  it  is  uothing  worth,  St.  James  chap.  ii. 
If  you  say  you  hope  in  God,  but  do  not  love  Him,  you  make 
youi'self  a  liar.  For  if  you  know  enough  about  God  to  see 
you  ought  to  hope  in  Him,  it  is  impossible  for  you  not  to 
acknowledge  Him  to  be  the  greatest  Good  :  and  if  so  it  is 
impossible  for  you  not  to  love  Him.  If  you  love,  but  have 
no  trust,  it  is  mere  words,  for  he  cannot  love  God  who  does 
not  trust  in  Him.  The  human  heart,  therefore,  joined  to 
God,  which  is  piety,  has  different  names  by  way  of  amplifi- 
cation :  sometimes  we  understand  faith  to  mean  credence, 
hope  in  the  order  of  reason  follows  it,  and  then  love :  and  so 
all  this  confidence  of  the  human  heart  in  God  is  called  some- 
times faith,  sometimes  hope,  sometimes  love :  and  whether 
you  beheve  in,  hope  in,  or  love  God,  it  is  nothiug  eise  but  real 
aflfection  towards  Him.  Hence  it  happcns,  that  sometimes 
these  three  are  contained  in  the  single  idca  of  piety,  faith  is 
taken  for  love,  and  hope  for  faith."  Now  whoever  can  see 
any  thing,  must  see  that  this  is  a  most  apposite  testimony  to 


154  Zuinglius  and  Zegerus  agreed  on  this  point. 

S  T  R I C.  tlie  opinion  of  Zesrerus,  tliat  is,  to  mv  own  wliich  vou  call 

'—  most  absurd,  whereas  yours  is  diametrically  opposed  to  it. 

For  Ist,  Zuinglius  here  clearly  teaches  tliat  faith,  to  which 
justification  and  salvation  are  attributed  in  Scripture,  (and 
speciaUy  that  faitli  of  which  St.  Paul  says  tliat  it  is  counted 
for  righteousness,)  is  tbat  same  confidence  wliicli  compre- 
hends  the  tliree  Divine  virtues,  faith,  bope,  and  love,  and  whicli 
is  plainly  tbe  same  as  tbe  wliole  of  Christian  piety,  '  or  the 
heart  joined  to  God.^  2ndly,  he  clearly  asserts,  that  unless 
this  view  be  taken,  there  must  remain  many  difiiculties  in 
Scripture  unsolved.  Without  doubt  he  was  thinking  espe- 
cially  of  the  apparent  disagreement  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  James. 
For  he  quotes  particularly  the  passage  in  Rom.  iv.  where 
faith  is  said  to  be  counted  to  a  man  for  righteousness ; 
affirming  that  unless  faith  is  there  taken  in  this  complex 
sense,  that  passage  cannot  be  reconciled  with  others,  in 
Avhich  justification  and  salvation  ai'e  attributed  to  other 
A'h'tues.  He  moreover  quotes  expressly  the  second  chapter 
of  St.  James's  Epistle,  to  prove  that  faith  as  a  single  virtue  is 
not  by  any  means  suSicient  for  a  man's  justification. 

You  see  from  this  that  my  plan  of  reconciling  the  Apostles 
St.  Paul  and  St.  James  is  by  no  means  new,  even  if  you  look 
to  reformed  divines :  to  say  nothing  of  the  aucients,  whom  I 
well  kuow  you  hold  for  naught. 

STRICTURE  XYII. 

ON  II.  DISS.  vii. 

In  this  chapter  I  examine  a  question  by  the  way,  whether 
the  law  of  Moses  was  uuder  any  view  a  law  of  most  perfect 
and  therefore  unattainable  virtue  and  righteousness;  and 
whether  the  arguments  of  the  Apostle,  in  Rom.  iii.,  and 
Gal.  iü.  10,  against  justification  by  that  law,  are  fouuded  on 
this  consideration ;  and  the  negative  side  of  the  question  I 
Support  by  many  arguments.  But  the  Avhole  of  my  Disser- 
tation is  thrown  over  as  wholly  irrelevant;  thus  you  write 
on  the  margin  of  p.  106,  "With  cvil  pm-pose  and  un- 
hallowed  pains,  and  quite  irrelcvantly,  you  deny  pcrfectiou 
to  the  law  of  Moses.  For  St,  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  law 
which  will  be  the  rule  of  the  last  judgraent,  which  no  one 


Gross  absurdity  ofthis  Stricture.  155 

but  a  fool  would  deny  is  a  rule  of  perfect  obedience :  see  s  T  R  l  c. 

tbe  second  chapter  of  Ins  Epistle  to  the  Romans.     By  the '— 

woi'ks    of  this   law   he    denies    tliat    any   one    is    justified, 
cliap.  iü." 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XVII. 

§  1.  I  do  not  remember  ever  to  have  seen  so  many  gross 
mistakes  heaped  together  in  so  few  words.  For  in  the  first 
placC;  I  no  more  deny  perfection  to  the  law  of  Moses^  as  you 
dream,  than  to  the  Gospel.  For  although  it  is  most  true, 
that  the  law  of  Moses,  compared  with  the  Gospel,  is  a  more 
imperfect  rule  of  obedience,  yet  this  is  not  the  question  here. 
I  deny  that  the  law  of  Moses  was  a  law  of  most  perfect  obe- 
dience in  the  same  sense  that  I  also  deny  that  the  Gospel  is 
a  law  of  most  perfect  obedience :  in  truth,  from  the  drift  of 
the  whole  of  my  argument  it  is  clear  that  by  a  law  of  perfect 
obedience  I  meant  nothing  eise  than  such  a  law  as  exacts 
the  most  perfect  and  complete  virtue  from  man  in  every  par- 
ticular,  as  an  indispensably  necessary  condition  of  obtaining 
salvation,  while  it  denounces  on  him  for  the  least  defect  of 
such  righteousness  eternal  death  and  the  dreadful  torments 
of  hell.  Therefore  it  is  to  no  pvirpose  at  all  in  the  face  of  the 
piain  State  of  the  question  laid  down  in  the  beginning  of  the 
chapter,  in  the  face  of  the  piain  drift  of  the  arguments  which 
I  am  using  to  persuade  yourself,  (as  not  unfrequently  you 
shut  your  eyes  in  the  clearest  light,)  that  I  am  labouring  in 
this  passage  to  prove  that  "  the  law  of  Moses,  compared  Avith 
the  Gospel,  is  an  imperfect  rule  of  obedience,  and  is  of  less 
avail  towards  producing  holiness."  Observe,  these  are  your 
own  words  in  the  notes  on  this  page. 

§  2.  I  cannot  sufficiently  wonder  at  your  saying  that  the 
discussion  I  have  here  entered  upon,  relative  to  the  law  of 
Moses,  is  nothing  to  the  purpose,  and  for  this  reason,  that 
St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  another  law ;  for  I  am  professedly 
explaining  the  argument  of  the  Apostle  contained  in  Rom,  iii. 
and  Gal.  iii.  10 ;  in  both  which  places  it  is  quite  piain  that 
St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  law  of  Moses.  Of  the  passage  in 
Gal.  iii.  10,  no  one  in  his  senses  would  doubt,  since  the  very 
words  of  the  law  of  Moses  are   cited.     It  rcmains  to  be 


156  Law  of  Moses  spoken  of  in  Rom.  iü. 

s T Ri c.  enquired  wliether  the  Apostle  has  the  same  object  in  view  iu 

— :_  tlie  argument  in  Rom.  iii.     I  affirm  that  tlie  Apostle  is  tliere 

speaking  of  the  law  of  Moses,  and  I  prove  it  by  these  argu- 
ments.  In  tlie  first  place,  it  has  been  observed  long  ago  by 
far  tlie  inost  learned  meii,  (do  not  despise  their  Observation,) 
that  in  St.  PauFs  Epistles,  as  often  as  the  word  '  the  law^  is 
used  absolutely,  as  in  the  controverted  passage,  without  any 
adjunct,  it  invariably  means  the  law  of  Moses ;  the  reason  of 
whicli  is  piain;  for  there  are  tliree  laws  altogether,  (I  am 
speaking  of  the  laws  whicli  beloiig  to  fallen  man,)  the  law  of 
nature,  of  Moses,  and  of  the  Gospel.  Now  it  is  piain  that 
the  Gospel  is  no  where  by  St.  Paul  absolutely  called  ^  a  law,^ 
i/6/i09,  much  less,  '  the  law,'  6  1/0/109 :  as  neither  is  the  law  of 
nature,  since  they  who  have  none  but  that,  are  said  by  him 
to  be  'without  law,'  %««>pt'?  vöfiov,  Rom.  ii.  12,  and  'liaving 
not  the  law,'  voixov  fjurj  e')(ovTe<;,  ver.  14.  2ndly,  the  context  of 
the  clause  in  question  plainly  shews  that  the  Apostle's  argu- 
ment there  has  reference  to  the  Mosaie  law.  For  in  the 
beginning  of  the  chapter  St.  Paul  convicts  the  Jews  of  sin 
(he  had  done  this  in  reference  to  the  Gentiles  chap.  ii.),  by 
many  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament.  That  the  Jews 
might  not  allege  that  these  testimonies  had  no  reference  to 
them,  St.  Paul  adds,  ver.  19,  "  but  we  know  that  what  tliings 
soever  the  law  saith,  it  saith  to  them  that  are  under  the  law  :" 
where  he  means  by  'those  under  the  law,'  Jews,  and  pro- 
selytes  who  had  taken  upon  them  the  whole  Jewish  law. 
For  these  are  said  to  be  ''in  the  law'  in  the  passage  just 
cited,  Rom.  ii.  13,  and  '  under  the  law.'  Immediately  then 
the  Apostle  subjoins,  ver.  20,  ''  Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the 
law  there  shall  110  flesli  be  justified."  Who  now,  but  one 
who  is  wilfuUy  blind,  does  not  see  at  once,  that  the  Apostle 
is  here  speaking  of  the  law  to  whicli  the  Jews  were  subject, 
viz.  the  law  of  Moses?  Who  would  deny  again  that  in  ver.  20, 
"  Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified  :"  and  ver.  28,  "we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by 
faith  without  the  works  of  the  law,"  the  Apostle  spoke  of  the 
same  law  ?  In  the  latter  passage,  that  the  Apostle  was  speak- 
ing of  the  law  given  to  the  Jews  is  most  evident  from  the 
words  immediately  following,  ver.  20 :  "  Is  Ile  the  God  of  the 
Jews  üiily?     Is  He  not  also  of  the  Gentiles?     Ycs,  of  the 


Last  ivords  of  the  Stricture  exposed  and  refuted.       157 

Gentiles  also."  Where  you  liave,  as  Beza  has  observed,  an  s  T  R  i  c. 
argumentum  ex  absurdo.  "  If  justification  depended  on  the  ^^^^^- 
law  of  Moses,  God  would  be  a  Saviour  to  tlie  Jews  only. 
Likewise,  if  He  saved  tlie  Jews  in  one  way,  tlie  Gentiles  in 
another^  He  would  not  be  like  Himself :  He  will  justify  botli 
therefore  in  one  and  the  same  yvay,  viz.  by  the  faith  of  the 
Gospel." 

§  3.  You  speak  as  if  there  were  some  law  which  would  be 
the  rule  of  judgment  for  all  in  the  last  day,  and  as  though 
this  were  clear  from  Rom.  chap.  ii.,  both  which  things  are 
false.  All  will  not  be  tried  by  the  rule  of  the  same  law  in 
the  last  judgment ;  but  eaeh  by  the  rule  of  that  law  or  dis- 
pensation  under  which  he  has  lived,  which  the  Apostle 
teaches  most  plainly  in  the  twelfth  verse  of  the  chapter 
quoted.  "  For  as  many  as  have  sinned  without  law,  shall 
also  perish  without  law ;  and  as  many  as  have  sinned  in  the 
law,  shall  be  judged  by  the  law,"  i.  e.  the  Gentiles,  who  were 
without  the  written  law,  will  be  judged  by  the  law  of  uature; 
but  the  Jews  by  the  \mtten  law  of  Moses,  as  that  Avhich  was 
given  to  them. 

§  4.  He  who  affii-ms  that  the  law  which  will  be  the  rule 
of  the  last  judgment  is  a  law  of  perfect  obedience,  (in  the 
seuse  in  which  a  law  of  perfect  obedience  is  taken  in  my 
argument,)  is  not  only  a  fool,  but  downright  mad.  For  from 
that  ajffirmation  it  would  follow  that  the  whole  race  of  mati- 
kind  would  utterly  perish  in  the  last  judgment. 

§  5.  If  a  law  of  perfect  obedience  be  taken  according  to 
your  own  meaning,  viz.  such  a  law  as  sets  forth  and  dis- 
plays  most  perfect  virtue,  although  it  does  not  enact  or 
demand  it  at  the  hazard  of  our  souls;  not  even  thus  will  it 
be  true  that  all  men  will  be  judged  by  the  i-ule  of  a  law 
which  is  a  law  of  perfect  obedience.  For  all  who  have  been 
without  a  positive  law,  (which  is  by  fax  the  greater  part  of 
mankind,)  will  be  judged  by  the  law  of  nature,  as  the  Apostle 
teaches  most  plainly  in  the  passage  just  quoted,  Rom.  ii.  12 ; 
and  whoever  says  that  the  mere  law  of  nature  is  a  rule  of 
perfect  virtue  in  all  points  equal  to  the  Gospel,  is  fit  to  go 
straight  to  Bedlam. 

§  6.  Lastly,  your  assei'tion  in  the  last  clause,  that  St.  Paul 
in  Rom.  chap.  iii.  denies  that  any  one  is  justified  by  the  law 


158         What  IS  meant  by  '  a  law  qfperfect  oöedience.' 

s  T  R I  c.  which  will  be  the  rule  of  the  last  judgmeut,  is  a  step 
^  ^  even  beyond  madness.  This  is  just  tlie  same  as  if  you  liad 
Said  tliat  St.  Paul  taught  that  no  man  would  be  saved  in  the 
last  judgraent.  For  wbereas  tliere  are  but  two  opposite  acts 
of  Di^dne  judgments,  justification  and  condemnation^  if  no  one 
■will  be  justified  by  the  law  which  will  be  the  rule  of  the  last 
judgment,  it  follows  of  course  that  all  men  will  be  condemned 
in  the  last  judgment.  I  am  ashamed  and  grieved^  seriously 
and  laborjously  to  oppose  such  gross  absurdities;  and  yet 
you  call  them  Strictures  on  a  book.  Cease  betimes^  my 
Censurer,  if  you  are  wise,  to  profess  criticism  in  future,  after 
having  disgraced  youi'self  so  often  in  this  speeimen  of  your  art. 

APPENDIX  TO  EXAMINATION  OF  STRICTURE  XVII. 

Although  my  Censurer  has  with  an  exceeding  display  of 
ignorance  carped  at  my  Dissertation  in  this  chapter  on  the 
law  of  perfect  obedience :  yet  I  confess  that  some  learned 
and  pious  men  have  not  been  pleased  with  my  digression  on 
this  head,  from  reasons  that  are  not  without  show  of  truth. 
I  will  do  my  best  to  satisfy  these  persons,  and  if  I  fail  in  my 
attempt,  candid  readers  will  remember  that  in  this  chapter 
of  the  Harmony  I  have  only  modestly  and  with  all  duc 
deference  to  better  judgment,  put  forward  my  opiuion : 
moreover  also  that  the  whole  of  this  discourse  is  a  digression, 
as  I  Said :  for  if  it  be  passed  over,  it  will  take  nothing  fi-om 
our  principal  design,  which  regards  the  reconciliation  of 
St.  Paul  with  St.  James. 

§  2.  Here  to  avoid  all  disputes  about  words,  I  will  first 
shew  briefly  what  I  mean  by  '  a  law  of  perfect  obedience.' 
By  a  law  of  perfect  obedience  I  mean  no  other  than  a  law 
distinct  from  and  prior  to  the  Gospel,  which  exacts  from 
fallen  man  a  most  perfect  virtue  or  conformity  to  the  eternal 
law,  i.  e.  perfect  not  onl}^  in  all  points  but  also  in  degree,  and 
that  in  every  particular  and  circumstance  (as  they  say)  such  as 
could  have  been  performed  by  the  first  man  inastate  of  integrity 
and  assisted  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit, — with  a  promise 
of  heavenly  and  eternal  life,  if  he  performed  such  righteous- 
ness,  but  with  the  threat  of  everlasting  death,  if  he  turned 
even  in  the  least  from  it.     This  is  what  is  coramonly  called 


Catholic  doctrine  on  this  head. — Thesis  first.  159 

by  dmnes  '  the  law^  or  '  covenant  of  works'  (but  wrongly,  as  s  T  R  l  c. 

it  has  beeil  above  observed).     I  say  Istly^  that  no  sucb  law  has  -l '— 

existed  frora  the  fall  of  the  first  man.  .2ndly,  that  the  argu- 
ment  of  the  Apostle,  wherein  he  deuies  that  any  one  can  be 
justified  by  the  law  of  jNIoses^  does  not  at  all  proceed  froni 
the  supposition  that  the  law  of  Moses  was  a  law  of  works  of 
this  kindj  but  plainly  rests  on  another  foundation,  \iz.  that 
that  law,  in  the  view  in  which  it  is  considered  by  the  Apostle, 
does  not  under  any  condition  whatsoever  confer  true  justifi- 
cation,  i.  e.  justification  joined  with  the  gift  of  eternal  life. 
This  latter  assertion  we  will  presently  in  its  place  support 
against  om*  Censui'er  by  the  plainest  arguments.  Here  we 
must  do  our  best  to  prove  the  former  assertion. 

§  3.  It  is  astonishing  what  an  outcry  some  men  raise  on 
this  point.  They  exclaim  that  by  this  assertion  of  mine  the 
whole  System  of  orthodox  divinity  is  ruined,  and  torn  in 
pieces :  that  the  very  foundations  both  of  the  law  and  the 
Gospel  are  plucked  up.  These  results,  unless  I  am  greatly 
deceivedj  Square  more  exactly  with  their  own  thesis.  For  I 
think  that  the  doctrine  which  maintains  that  the  descendants 
of  fallen  Adam  as  such,  are  placed  under  a  law  or  covenant 
of  eternal  life,  such  as  I  have  described,  is  directly  at  variance 
with  the  first  and  most  acknowledged  priuciples  of  Clu'is- 
tianity  or  the  Catholic  faith.  That  this  may  be  seen  more 
clearly,  we  will  set  forth  the  Catholic  doctrine  on  this  head 
in  some  clear  and  e^"ideut  theses. 

§  4.  Thesis  first.  The  covenant  of  life  entered  into  with 
Adam  in  a  perfect  state,  was  broken  by  his  sin,  not  only  for 
himself  but  for  his  descendants;  so  that  all  the  sons  of 
Adam,  as  such,  are  sons  of  death,  i.  e.  entii'ely  excluded  from 
all  promiseof  immortal  life,  and  subject  to  the  necessityof  dying 
without  hope  of  a  resurrection.  There  is  no  proposition  more 
certain  than  this  in  all  theology.  Every  where  in  the  writings 
of  the  New  Testament  it  is  delivered  most  plainly  and  expressly, 
especiaUy  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  chap.  v.  throughout. 
Whence  also  all  the  approved  doctors  of  the  ancient  Church,  as 
well  those  before  as  those  who  Hved  after  Pelagius,  have  agi'ecd 
therein :  nor  has  it  ever  been  dcuied  by  any  one  with  impu- 
nity,  or  without  the  badge  of  heresy  being  put  upon  it.  Now 
that  God  could  justly  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam  aloue 


160  Thesis  second. 

S  T  R I  C.  have  excluded  all  his  posterity  from  immortal  life,  is  too 
-^— — '—  clear,  For,  as  the  most  learned  Gerard  Yossius  writes, 
j3g^^i;b_^[j_  "  Althougli  Adam  liad  not  sinned,  yet  miglit  God,  -^lio  is  the 
part  I.  fj.gg  dispenser  of  His  gifts,  liave  created  man  for  his  natural 
end,  and  so  Toid  of  grace  in  this  life  and  glory  hereafter. 
Now  it  is  most  evident  tliat  -svliat  God  could  do  absolutely, 
that  He  might  also  liave  done  relatively,  i.  e.  as  regards  the 
first  sin  of  our  first  parents ;  Tvhere  He  would  at  the  same 
time  shew  that  he  was  executing  the  office  of  a  righteous 
judge."  The  position  of  our  opponents  can  in  no  way  stand 
■\vith  this  Catholic  truth.  For  to  be  entirely  excluded  from 
all  promise  of  immortal  life,  and  to  be  under  a  covenant,  i.  e. 
a  promise  of  attaining  etemal  life  under  a  certain  condition, 
are  two  things  plainly  contradictory,  and  cannot  be  affirmed 
of  the  same  individual.  But  hence  it  foUows,  that  mau 
viewed  in  a  fallen  state,  if  by  an  impossibility  it  were  sup- 
posed  that  he  has  performed  most  absolute  righteousness, 
such  as  could  have  and  ought  to  have  been  performed  by 
man  in  his  first  and  perfect  state,  could  acquire  from  this 
no  right  to  a  heaveuly  and  eternal  life.  For  on  wliat  title 
would  that  right  depend  ?  on  a  covenant  or  Didne  promise  ? 
But  man  is  already  supposed  to  be  wholly  excluded  from  all 
promise  of  immortal  life  :  is  it  then  from  the  merit  of  this 
his  righteousness  ?  but  all  sound  dinnes  allow,  that  heavenly 
and  eternal  life  is  the  free  gift  of  God,  and  that  of  infinite 
liberality,  such  as  the  first  man,  living  most  exactly  in  a  per- 
fect State,  could  not  in  strictness  justly  have  expected. 

§5,  Thesis  second.  All  of  the  descendants  of  fallen  Adam, 
wlio  are  entirely  destitute  of  DiAine  revelation,  and  wbo  have 
not  been  acquainted  witli  the  new  covenant  of  life,  are  bound 
by  the  Obligation  of  the  law  of  nature  alone.  Such  were  the 
Gentiles,  whom  the  Apostle  describes  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Ei.h.2.r2.  Ephesians,  and^vhom  he  calls  "strangers  from  the  covenants 
of  promise.''  Of  thesc  pcrsons  wc  affirm  two  things  in  this 
proposition.  1.  That  they  are  hitherto  boimd  in  Obligation 
to  the  law  of  nature.  2.  That  they  are  bound  by  the  law  of 
nature  alone.  As  regai'ds  the  former  it  must  be  obsencd 
that  mankind,  although  by  the  sin  of  the  first  man  they  feil 
from  the  morc  intiraate  grace  and  favour  of  God,  yet  ncither 
have  they  been  uor  could  they  be  exempted  from  Divine 


Thesis  third.  161 

dominion.     Fallen  mau  ceased  indeed  to  be  tlie  friend  of  God,  s  T  R  l  c. 

at  least  so  as  to  have  near  access  to  Him :  still  he  remained '— 

tlie  subject  of  tlie  Most  High  God.  And  therefore,  the  law 
of  natura,  as  it  preceded  every  Divine  covenant,  so  when  the 
gracious  coveuant  of  God  was  put  an  end  to  by  sin,  it  still 
retained  its  own  force  and  vigour.  In  accordance  with  this 
law,  fallen  man  is  bound,  in  proportion  to  the  strength  leffc 
him,  to  do  every  thing  which  reason,  when  ealled  into  counsel, 
declares  to  be  part  of  the  duty  he  owes  to  God.  The  latter 
proposition  scarcely  requires  proof.  For,  putting  aside  all 
Divine  revelation  and  covenant,  it  is  piain  that  nothing  is  left 
to  man  but  the  law  of  natm-e,  which  cannot  be  abolished. 
Moreover  also,  the  same  thing  is  plainly  enough  taught  by 
the  Apostle,  Rom.  ii.  12. 

§  6.  Thesis  third.  The  law  of  nature,  (i.  e.  the  dictation  of 
reason,)  as  far  as  it  is  seen  in  fallen  man,  as  destitute  of  the 
spirit  and  the  Divine  revelation,  by  no  means  prescribes 
most  perfect  virtue,  nor  is  immortal  and  heavenly  life  due  to 
its  observance.  There  are  two  parts  of  this  statement : 
Ist,  that  the  law  of  nature,  \äewed  by  itself,  by  no  means 
prescribes  a  most  perfect  virtue :  2ndly,  that  immortal  and 
heavenly  life  is  not  the  reward  promised  for  its  observance. 
As  far  as  regards  the  former,  a  broad  field  is  here  open  for 
discussion  on  the  law  of  nature,  what  precepts  it  contains, 
how  far  it  extends,  &c.,  wliere  I  could  bring  forward  many 
things  weU  worthy  of  attention,  if  the  plan  of  my  design  did 
not  forbid  me  to  make  such  digressions.  That  the  bare  law 
of  nature,  however,  does  not  teach  most  perfect  virtue,  is 
easily  proved  by  this  one  argument.  The  law  of  nature  is 
content  witli  a  virtue  far  inferior  to  that  prescribed  in  the 
Gospel ;  therefore  it  by  no  means  teaches  perfect  virtue. 
The  truth  of  the  major  premiss  is  evident.  For  nothing 
greater,  nothing  higher,  nothing  more  perfect  can  be  exacted 
from  man  than  a  most  perfect  virtue.  The  minor  premiss 
also  I  do  not  think  any  one  will  call  in  qucstion,  whose  brain 
is  in  right  order.  In  truth,  the  law  of  the  Gospel  is  ealled  by 
divincs  a  'supcrnatural'  law  on  this  account,  bccause  it 
teaches  a  perfection  of  virtue  far  cxcecding  the  mcasurc  of 
nature.  Nor  is  any  thing  more  certain  than  that  we  Chris- 
tians, on  M'hom  tlie  heavenly  light  of  the  Gospel  has  shone, 

BULL.  j£ 


162  Thesis  third. 

s  T  R  I  c.  are  bound  by  law  to  attain  a  far  bigher  degree  of  virtue  tban 

— '—  tbat  to  wbicb  Gentiles  are  bound,  who  have  only  the  scanty 

and  darksome  ligbt  of  nature.  Tbat  saying  of  Justin  Martyr 
is  approved  (if  I  mistake  not)  by  tbe  consent  of  all  the 
cid  divines.  To  /xev  <yäp  erc  Kura  ^vaiv  ßtovv,  ovSe'Trco  Trewi- 
(nevKÖTo<i  iari.  "  To  be  stiU  liAdng  according  to  nature,  is 
tbe  part  of  one  wbo  bas  not  yet  believed."  As  regards  tbe 
latter  part  of  tbe  proposition,  wboever  Aaolates  tbe  law  of 
nature  is  Kable  to  tbe  punisbment  tbat  it  sball  seem  good  to 
the  Divine  justice,  wisdom  and  equity  to  inflict  on  bim  :  but 
no  Catbolic  will  affirm,  I  tbink,  tbat  immortal  and  beavenly 
life  is  in  any  wise  due  to  tbe  observance  of  this  sarae  law. 
For  tbe  immortality  of  tbe  first  man,  so  long  as  be  remained 
in  a  perfect  state,  depended  not  on  tbe  law  of  natui'e  (which 
nevertbeless  was  most  perfect  in  bim)  but  on  tbe  grace  and  pro- 
mise  of  God.  Nay,  so  far  from  tbat  eternal  and  beavenlj^  life, 
"whicb  is  promised  to  us  Christians,  being  due  to  tbe  obsert'- 
ance  of  the  mere  law  of  nature,  tbe  religion  of  nature  alone 
will  not  fit  a  man,  or  put  bim  in  the  way,  for  obtaining  such 
a  bfe  according  to  the  promise  of  God.  For  natural  means 
have  no  fitness  to  a  supernatural  end  (as  say  the  schoolmen). 
Nor  am  I  here  intruding  either  my  own  or  schoolmen^s 
fancies  upon  the  reader.  It  is  tlie  universal  and  constant 
opinion  of  all  Catbolic  doctors,  both  before  and  after  tbe  time 
of  Pelagius,  (with  the  agreement  also  of  the  most  ancient 
Jewish  masters,)  tbat  the  first  man  was  not  only  created  with 
a  natiu'al  iutegrity,  but  was  gifted  also  with  the  Holy  Spirit, 
by  which,  as  a  sort  of  principle  of  tbe  Divine  nature,  bis 
natural  faculties  (otherwise  by  no  means  capable  of  this)  were 
to  be  raised  to  the  obtaining  the  happiness  of  heaven  (which 
they  "ndth  good  reason  believed  was  destined  for  him  in  God's 
counsel,  and  of  which  they  justly  held  the  happiness  of  an 
earthly  paradise  to  have  been  as  it  were  a  type).  I  affirm 
notbing  here  which  I  cannot  easily  prove,  nay  (to  speak  out) 
whicb  I  have  not  long  ago  proved  abundantly  in  some  papers 
written  in  Englisb,  in  whicb  I  answered  a  book  of  Mr.  Tru- 
man,  written  against  me  in  Latin,  thougb  (absurdly  enougb) 
with  Englisb  idiom ;  and  tbcse  papers,  because  written  in 
Englisb,  (feariug  lest  the  handling  of  certain  deep  qucstions, 
which  had  becu  forced  upon  mc  by  tbe  subtleties  oftbat  gcntle- 


Thesis  Third.  163 

man,  should  prove  a  stumbling  block  to  the  unlearned,)  I  s  T  R  l  c. 
have  hitherto  determined  should  remain  among  my  adver- 
saria,  content  with  having  communicated  them  to  a  few 
friends  (who  are  witnesses  of  this).  For  if  this  unanimous 
opinion  of  tlie  Catholic  doctors  be  tnie,  the  distinction 
between  'natural  and  moral  inability'  (taken  from  the 
writings  of  Amyraldus,  and  supported  bv  Baxter's  authority) 
falls  to  the  ground,  and  this  the  author  takes  as  the  founda- 
tion  of  his  new  theology.  In  fact^  liis  hypothesis  comes  to 
this;  that  were  it  not  for  moral  inability,  i.  e.  (as  he 
explains  himself)  for  badness  of  will,  (which  meantime  he 
affirms  all  have  from  their  birth,  so  that  this  moral  inability 
comes  at  last  to  be  natui^al,)  everj^  son  of  fallen  Adam,  who 
-has  his  right  senses,  is  able,  without  the  assistance  of  any 
inward  grace,  perfectly  to  fulfil  the  whole  law  of  God,  suffi- 
ciently  revealed  to  him.  From  this  absurd  hypothesis  he 
deduces  many  otlier  things :  e.  g.  that  God  can  justly  exact 
from  fallen  man  most  absolute  vii'tue,  though  He  give  not, 
nor  be  ready  to  give  grace,  by  which  that  vii'tue  should  be 
perfoiTued  :  that  the  law  of  nature  itself  can  give  eternal  life 
to  such  as  observe  it :  that  the  Gospel  law  does  not  bring 
grace  with  it  to  the  Performance  of  the  obedience  which  it 
requires,  but  that  that  grace  is  given  at  the  mere  pleasui'e  of 
God,  to  some  few  who  are  called  the  '  elect :'  that  all  other 
men  are  justly  condemned,  because  they  could  do  good  if 
they  chose,  although  they  cannot  choose  it.  The  foundation 
of  these  doctrines  (which  the  ancient  Church  would  cer- 
taiuly  have  determined  to  be  most  worthy  of  anathema)  is 
thoroughly  Pelagian  and  most  false,  unless  indeed  all  the 
Catholic  fathers  were  egregiously  mistaken.  For  they 
believed  (as  was  said  just  now)  that  the  first  of  mankind 
(even  in  a  state  of  innocence,  when  no  moral  weakness 
attached  to  them,  and  the  least  possible  or  no  depravity  of 
will ;  when  the  natural  faculties,  both  of  body  and  mind,  were 
entire  and  perfect,  assisted  besides  with  wondrous  external 
grace  and  many  aids  proceeding  from  the  favourable  Con- 
stitution of  paradise)  yet  were  unable  by  their  own  natural 
strength,  without  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  rise  to  that 
virtue  which  should  make  them  fit  for  the  enjoyment  of 
heavenly  happiness.     And  thcrefore,  here  I  may  be  allowed 

M  2 


1 64  TTiesis  fourth . 

s  T  R  I  c.  with  the  fatliers  of  the  seconcl  Council  of  Orange,  to  argue, 

^^XH'__  "  Human  nature,  even  thougli  it  remained  in  tliat  integritv  in 

"*  which  it  was  created,  would  by  no  raeans  save  itself,  without 

the  assistance  of  its  Creator.     If  tlien,  without  the  grace  of 

God,  it  could  not  keep  the  salvatiou  which  it  had  received, 

how  without  the  grace  of  God  can  it  repair  that  which  it  has 

lost  V  From  all  these  things  it  follows  that  no  one,  under  the 

law  of  uature  alone,  can  hx  the  power  alone  of  that  same  law 

arrive  at  the  happiuess  of  heaven,  which  is  promised  to  us 

Christians :   and  cousequentlv,  that  if  any  of  the  Geutiles, 

upon  whom  the  light  of  the  Gospel  has  never  shone,  ohtain  the 

kingdom  of  heaven,  they  ohtain  that  happiuess  by  Tirtue  of 

the  new  covenant  established  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the 

assistance  of  some  supernatural  and  extraordiuary  grace  ad- 

ministered  to  them  through  Christ :  and  this  our  Lord  Him- 

Joh.  3.  3.    seif  taught,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the 

Joh.  3.  6.   kingdom  of  God :"  adding  the  reason,  "thut  which  is  born  of  the 

flesh  is  flesh:  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spiiit  is  Spu'it.'^ 

§  7.  Thesis fourth.  God  never  entered  into  any  covenant  with 

the  posterity  of  fallen  Adam,  which  was  not  confii'med  and 

ratified  in  Christ  oiir  Saviour,  the  second  Adam;  consequently 

into  none  other  than  the  Gospel,  according  to  the  saying  of  the 

Rom.6.23.  Apostle,  "  The  gift  of  God  is  eternal  hfe  through  Jesus  Christ 

oui-  Lord."     This  position,  I  think,  is  an  axiom  of  which  no 

Christian   has  a  doubt;  we  will  dispense  therefore  with  a 

laborious  proof  of  the  same,  as  the  suu  need  borrow  no  light 

from  US.    Hence  follows  what  is  worth  the  readei^'s  attention, 

viz.  that    God    entered   into    two    coveuants    altogether,   of 

eternal  life,  with  mankind :  the  first  with  man  immediately 

after  bis  creation;   the  second  with  fallen  man,  called  the 

Gospel.     There   is   mention  indeed   made   in   Scriptm-e   of 

two    Dinne   coveuants   after   the  fall    of  mau :    the  ]\Iosaic 

and  the  Gospel  covenant :  of  which  the  former  is  called  the 

.Ter. 31. 13, ' old,'  the  latter  the  'new;'  the  former  called  the  'first,'  the 

7  *^8^13^  lattcr  the  '  second.'     But  it  is  piain  that  in  this  distinction 

the  !Mosaic  covenant,  as  opposcd  to  the  Gospel,  is  understood 

carnally  and  according  to  the  letter :  in  which  acceptation  it 

never  was  a  covenant  of  eternal  life,  neither  was  it  entered 

into  with  mankind  in  general,  but  with  the  Jews  only.     We 

read  also  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham :  but  that  was  the 


Thesisfißh.  165 

Gospel  itself,  revealed  fittingly  for  those  times  indistiuctly  s  T  R  l  c. 
and  obscurely,  as  the  Apostle  testifies,  Gal.  iii.  8,  16,  17.  ^^^^- 
Neither  is  the  Apostle  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
at  variance  with  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews : 
although  the  latter  calls  the  ]Mosaic  covenant '  first'  and  '  old/ 
the  Gospel  'second^  and  'new:'  while  the  former,  on  the 
contrary,  calls  the  Gospel  the  'first/  the  Mosaic  the  'latter' 
covenant.  For  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  the  Gospel,  as  we 
Said,  obscurely  revealed ;  in  which  sense  it  A^■as  revealed  not 
only  before  the  law  of  Moses,  as  in  some  degree  to  Abraham, 
but  before  Abraham  too,  and  it  was  in  force  immediately 
after  the  fall  of  the  first  man.  Xow  the  author  of  the  Tit.  1.1,2. 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  views  the  Gospel  covenant  as  most 
fally  revealed  through  and  after  Christ's  advent,  and  ratified 
by  the  consummation  of  the  sacrifice  of  our  Redeemer :  in 
which  acceptation  it  succeeded  the  Mosaic  covenant  on  its 
abolition.  In  these  four  positions  now  laid  do^vn,  (of  which 
the  first,  third,  and  fourth  can  scarcely  be  denied  without 
heresy,  while  the  second  is  piain  truth,)  our  undertaking  is 
completed.  For  if  the  covenant  of  life  entered  into  with 
Adam,  was  made  null  and  void  by  his  sin,  not  only  for  him- 
self,  but  his  posterity;  if  all  those  of  Adam's  posterity  to 
whom  the  new  covenant  of  life  is  not  yet  made  known,  and 
who  are  destitute  of  Dinue  revelation,  are  bound  by  the  law 
of  uature  only,  which  neither  dictates  a  most  perfect  ^irtue, 
nor  can  give  eternal  life  to  those  who  observe  it :  if,  lastly, 
God  has  entered  into  no  new  covenant  of  eternal  life  with 
the  descendants  of  fallen  Adam,  but  the  Gospel  covenant, 
then  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  there  is  no  law 
er  covenant  distinct  from  the  Gospel,  and  prior  to  it,  which 
exacts  most  perfect  virtue  fi*om  fallen  man,  under  a  promise 
of  eternal  life,  if  he  perform  such  righteousness  :  under  the 
threat  of  eternal  damnation,  if  he  fail  in  doing  this.  So  that 
it  is  unnecessary  to  proceed  farther  in  this  disquisition. 
Nevertheless,  as  I  think  it  will  be  to  the  reader's  advantage, 
I  will  endeavour  to  set  forth,  in  some  theses,  the  natui'e  and 
grounds  of  the  second  or  Gospel  covenant. 

§  8.  Tliesis  ßfth.  The  Gospel,  or  the  law  of  Christ,  although 
it  teaches  a  high  religion,  (especially  where  it  is  most  fully 
revealed  in  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,)  yet  cnjoius 


166  Thesisfifth. 

STRIC.  notliing  on  fallen  man  whicli  cannot  be  fulfilled  throngli  the 

L_  grace  whicli  it  promises.     This   statement  is  easily  proved 

botli  from  the  Scriptures  and  by  testimonies  of  tbe  ancients, 

as  also,  lastly,  by  piain  reason.    First  then,  as  is  fitting,  let  us 

heai'  the  sacred  oracles.     The  passages  quoted  from  St.  Paul 

II.  Diss.    in  the  Harmonv  are  the  most  notable  :  in  which  the  Gospel 
xi.  2  .  " 

law  is  called  'the  power  of  God/  Rom.  i.  16;  'the  law  of 

the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus/  Rom.  viii.  2 ;  '  the  Spirit/ 

2  Cor.  iii.  9;  'the  ministration  of  the  Spirit/  ver.  8.     For 

from  these  passages  it  is  piain  that  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is 

indissolubly  united  with  His  law,  and  proceeds  step  by  step 

with  it :  so  that  nothing  is  enjoined  in  the  Gospel  law  for 

the  Performance  of  which  the  grace,  which  it  gives,  is  in- 

adequate ;  forsooth  the  Gospel,  as  far  as  it  is  law,  so  far  is  it 

See  Rom.  the  law  of  the  Spirit. 

Hebjs.ib;      §  ^-  -^^  regards  the  Fathers,  it  was  a  common  opinion  of 

1  Joh.  5.3.  the  Catholic  Fathers,  who  lived  before  Pelagius,  that  through 

the  grace  of  Christ  a  man  could  fulfil  all  His  commands,  as 

I  have  already  shewn  clearly,  Harm.  Apost.  IL  Diss.  "vü.  14. 

Kay,  those  Fathers,  proceeding  from  the  power  to  the  act, 

openly   taught    that    there    are    some  who  come  to  perfect 

Strom.  6.  virtue.     Thus  Clement  of  Alexandria.     "  All  then  are  fitted 

for  the   acquisition  of  virtue :  but  one  man  disciplines  and 

exercises  himself  more,  another  less ;  whence  some  have  even 

arrived  at  perfect  virtue,  wliilst  others  have  only  reached  a 

Contra      ccrtain  point."   Origen  speaks  more  at  length,  where  he  cites 

üL  p.  153.  ^^^  refutes  the  words  of  Celsus,  as  follows  :  "  He  goes  on  to 

edit  Can-  say,  Thcy  who  sin  not,  are  partakers  of  a  better  life ;  not  ex- 

plaining  whom  he  calls  sinless,  whether  those  who  are  such 

from  the  beginning,  or  those  who  are  such  since  repentance. 

Now  it  is  impossible  to  find  such  as  have    never  sinned  from 

the  beginning :  and  they  who  sin  not  after  repentance  are 

rarely  found,  and  are  rendered  such  by  tlieir  Coming  to  the 

saving  word,  not  having  been  such  before  the}'  came :  for 

without  the  word,  and  that  the  'perfect'  word,  it  is  impossible 

for  a  man  to  be  without  sin."     Where  Origen  teaches  three 

things :  Ist,  that  it  is   quite  impossible  for  any  man  to  be 

without  sin,  before  he  is  admitted  to  Gospel  grace :  2ndly, 

that  there  are  some,  who  after  they  have  received  the  grace 

of  the  Gospel,  do  arrive  at  that  pinnacle  of  virtue  :  but  3rdly, 


Thesisfifth.  167 

that  they  are  very  few,  and  are  very  seldom  found ;  that  is  to  s  T  R I C. 
say,  according  to  Origen  this  perfection  of  virtue  is  possible  : 


and  consequently  some  are  found,  wlio  have  attained  it :  j&t 
it  is  an  arduous  and  very  difficult  tliing,  and  so  is  found  in 
veiy  few  cases.  A  few  lines  above  he  had  very  Ijeautifully^ 
vritli  a  very  elegant  simile,  explained  this,  in  these  words  :  "No 
small  power,  in  any  matter,  hoTvever  arduous,  or,  so  to  speak, 
impossible,  is  in  the  will,  especially  if  practice  be  taken  to 
aid.  A  man  can  walk  on  a  tight  rope  on  high  in  the  middle 
of  a  theatre  clogged  too  with  great  weights,  when  he  has 
gained  himself  this  faculty  by  practice  and  unwearied  dili- 
gence :  and  shall  the  pursuit  of  virtue  be  fruitless,  or  ought  it 
to  seem  impossible  to  a  man,  however  depraved  he  may  be  ?" 
§  10.  I  come  now  to  the  Fathers  who  since  the  heresy  of 
Pelagius  have  treated  of  this  questiou.  The  cliief  of  them, 
St.  Augustine,  though  he  was  carried  away  by  his  worthy 
zeal  in  opposing  that  pestilent  heresiarch,  and  in  some  things 
went  too  fai",  and  in  order  to  refute  a  new  heresy,  took  new 
grounds,  new  at  least  as  unrecognised  by  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  who  were  even  then  Fathers,  and  not  sufficiently 
approved  of  by  the  Catholics  of  his  own  age  :  (this  was  long 
ago  obsened  by  most  learned  men,  in  all  other  respects  the 
greatest  admirers  of  this  excellent  Father  :)  yet  he  still  firmly 
held  the  doctrine  of  his  predecessors,  so  far  at  least  as  ever 
to  teach  (nor  has  he  ever  changed  this  opinion  or  thrown  it 
into  his  books  of  Retractations)  that  it  was  possible  for  a 
man  by  the  grace  of  God  perfectly  to  fulfil  the  law,  and  be 
without  sin,  although  he  thought  difFerently  as  to  the  matter 
of  fact.  There  are  clear  and  distinct  testimonies  to  this  eflPect, 
adduced  from  his  writings  by  the  excellent  Gerard  Vossius, 
and  others.  Thus  "  It  is  one  thing  to  enquii'e  whether  the  [vol.  x.  p. 
law  can  be  observed  in  this  life,  so  far  as  coraes  under  its  Lib  de 
precepts  :  another,  whether  it  has  been  in  fact  obsened  bv  J^/^*-  ^}- , 

.  .  *    hber.  Arb. 

any   one  perfectly,   and  without  any  transgression   at   any  c.  ti.  et  7. 
time:  we  assert  the  former,  wo  deny  the  latter."     Like^rise,  '^' 
"The  Pelagians  think  they  know  some  great  thing,  when 
they  say,  '  God  woukl  not  order  what  He  knew  coiild  not  be 
performed  by  man  ■'  who  does  not  know  this  ?"     Likewise,  ^^'°|  ^'  P' 
"  From  these  and  sirailar  testimonies  I  cannot  doubt,  either  lib.  ü. 
that  God  has  put  any  thing  upon  man  that  is  impossible,  or  ^erit.  et 

Reniis.c.f) 


168  Thesisfifth. 

S  T  R I C.  tliat  it  is  in  any  tliing  impossible  for  God  to  assist  and  aid 

XVII  •  •'  cj         i 
'—  man  in  such  way  that  what  He  orders  may  be  done :  and  by 


tbis  meanSj  a  man,  if  he  choose,  can  by  God^s  help  be  with- 
c,  43.  out  siu/^  and  "  God  does  not  then  order  impossibihties  :  but 
by  ordering  He  admonishes  you  both  to  do  what  you  can, 
c.  69.  and  to  ask  assistance  in  what  you  cannot  do.'^  "  From  the 
very  fact  that  ive  most  firmly  believe,  that  a  just  and  good 
God  could  not  order  impossibilities,  we  are  remiuded,  when 
things  are  easy,  that  we  have  somewhat  to  do ;  when  things 
are  hard,  that  we  have  somewhat  to  ask.  For  all  things  are 
easy  to  love,  to  which  alone  Christas  bürden  is  light.^^ 

§  11.    Jerorae    thought   there   was   no    doubt    about   the 

ground  of  St.  Austin's  doctrine.     For  almost  in  the  begin- 

ning  of  book  3.  against  the  Pelagians,  he  says,  "  God  has 

commanded  possibilities :    no  one  doubts  this."     Neverthe- 

less  he  has  continuaDy  denied  that  a  man  can  by  the  grace 

of  God  live  without  sin.     It  was  by  a  wonderfully  ingenious 

device  that  he  could  reconcile  two  such  opposite  doctrines ! 

forsooth   that    God's   precepts   are   possible   for   the   whole 

[§  2L  vol.  Chiu'ch,  but  not  for  individuals.     His  words  in  the  first  book 

against  the  Pelagians  are  as  foUows :   "  You  see/'  says  he, 

"that  God  hath  commanded  what  is  possible  to  be  done;  and 

yet  this  which  is  possible  to  be  done,  no  one  by  nature  can 

do.      Therefore  He  hath  given  divers  precepts  and  various 

virtues,  all  of  which  at  one  time  we  cannot  have,  and  so  it 

comes  to  pass,  that  what  in  one  man  forms  either  the  chief 

or  entii'e  excellence,  is  found  but  partially  in  another:  yet 

he  who  has  not  all  is  not  therefore  blameable,  neither  is  he 

conderaned  in  that  he  hath  not,  but  rather  justified  in  that 

[§  23.  p.    he  hath."    Also  soou  after  he  says,  "  God  hath  ordered  possi- 

-'         bilities,  I  allow  :  but  we  cannot  each  have  all  the  possibilities, 

not  from  the  weakness  of  nature,  (that  we  reproach  not  God,) 

but  from  weakness  of  mind,  which  cannot  have  at  once,  and 

at  all  times,  all  Aortues."     This  notion  of  Jerome,  however, 

II.  Diss.    St.  Austin  has  not  hesitated  openly  to  condemn  as  execrable 

Serm^igi  ^^^^phomy,  in  a  well-known  passage  quoted  in  the  Harmony  : 

de  Tem-    "  We  condemn  also  the  blasphemy  of  those  who  teach  that 

God  hath  commanded  impossibihties  to  be  done  by  man,  and 

that  the  commauds  of  God  cannot  be  kept  by  individuals, 

but  only  by  all  conjointly."  INIoreover  St.  Austin,  proceeding 


Thesisfifth.  169 

from  tlie  possibility  to  actual  fact,  thoiiglit  it  no  dangerous  STRIC. 
error  to  hold,  tliat  some  after  conversion,  by  tlie  grace  of  ^^  - 
God,  liave  lived  witliout  sin.  S  j^  g^ 

§  12.    All  the  Canons  of  tlie  Council  of  Milevis,  Avhicli  Lit.  c.  2. 
toucli  on  this  question,  speak  not  of  the  possibility,  but  of  ^^gn    '   ' 
the  fact.      There  are  altogether  three;    1,  that  every  one 
ought   to   say,   "  Forgive   us   our  trespasses  -J"    2,  and  that 
not  only  for  others,  but  also  for  himself:  3,  and  that  not 
of  humility  only,  but  as  in  truth.     So  far,  however,  were  the 
Fathers  from  expressly  decreeiug  by  any  canon  that  the  law 
of  God  cannot  be  fulfilled  by  the  grace  of  Christ,  that  tliey 
have  expressly  declared  the  contrary.     In  truth,  (as  is  found  Can.  113. 
in  the  Greek  translation  of  African  canons,)  they  denouuce 
nn  anathema  upon  those  who  say  that  the  grace  of  God 
through  Jesus  Christ  "  is  of  avail  for  the  forgiveness  only  of 
sins  already  committed,  but  aifords  not  aid  against  sinning 
for  the  time  to  come'.'^     They  anathematize  those  also  who 
teach  of  the  grace  of  Christ,  "  that  we  are  unable  through  it 
to  love  and  to  do  what  we  know  ought  to  be  done."     Hence 
two  hundred  years  and  more  after  the  death  of  St.  Austin, 
his  doctrine  was  held  as  Catholic  truth.     The  best  witness  of 
this  is  the  venerable  Bede,  by  far  the  first  of  the  doctors  of  [vol.  iv.  p. 
the  Church  of  his  time,  and  the  most  bitter  enemy  of  the  jrgg^-f' 
Pelagian  heresy,  who  writes  thus :  "  As  to  his  saying  that  lib.  i.  in 
God,  who  is  just,  liath  not  commanded  any  thing  impossible  j^iianum' 
to  be  done,  he  speaks  truly,  if  he  regards  His  help  to  whom 
the  Catholic  voice  prays,  '  Lead  me  in  the  way  of  Tliy  com- 
mandments  :'  but  if  he  trusts  in  the  poAvers  of  his  own  mind, 
he  is  contradicted  by  the  words  of  the  same  righteous  Creator, 
'  without  Me  ye  can  do  nothing.^ '' 

§  13.  The  Fathers  who  denied  that  man,  by  the  grace 
of  Christ  which  is  promised  in  the  Gospel,  could  perfectly 
fulfil  the  law  and  be  without  sin,  seem  to  me  to  have  meant 
the  law  in  its  strictest  sense,  viz.  that  original  law  by  which 
the  first  man  in  a  perfect  state  was  bound,  and  which  was  a 
most  perfect  copy  of  the  eternal  law ;  and  less  properly  to 
have  used  the  word  '  sin^  in  the  sense  of  any  fault  or  defect, 

i  Thus  the  Synod  of  Lydda  also  has  St.  Aug.  de  Gestis  Pel.  c.  6.  [vol.  x.  p. 

expressly  detcnniiied  "that  it  is  rightly  200].     See  also  Council  of  Orange  II. 

afllrnied,  that  a  man  with  God's  grace  last  Canon, 
and   assislance    can   hv    witliout    sin." 


170  Thesisßßh. 

s  T  R I  c.  which  though  it  has  now  become  part  of  man's  nature  for 

—  punishment  of  liis  first  sin^  and  cannot  by  any  means  be 

entirely  put  off  in  this  life^  and  so  is  not  properly  and  for- 
mally  sin,  but  ratlier,  as  T  said,  the  punislinient  of  bis  first 
sin,  yet  is  nevertbeless  a  deflesion  from  the  eternal  law,  or 
law  of  creation.  Under  tbis  class  of  sin  comes  that  solici- 
tation  of  concnpiscence  wbicb  is  ever  more  or  less  harassing 
the  best  men  in  tbis  mortal  life,  thougb  it  extort  no  assent 
of  the  will  wbatever ;  as  also,  all  those  defects  and  iufirmities, 
which  '  necessarily'  flow  from  the  fanlty  temperameut  of  the 
human  body,  consequent  upon  the  first  sin,  or  from  the  loss 
evKpaaia  of  that  most  perfect  harmony  with  which  the  first  formed 
man  was  gifted  in  bis  creation,  and  which,  had  he  not  sinned, 
he  might  have  preserved  by  eating  of  the  tree  of  life  given 
bim  by  God.  For  these  evils,  derived  from  the  first  Adam, 
God  would  not  that  the  grace  of  Christ,  the  second  Adam, 
should  be  a  füll  remedy  in  this  mortal  life :  He  willed  that  in 
some  degree  at  least  the  same  things  should  remain  even  in 
the  best  of  men,  as  long  as  they  are  on  their  way,  as  marks 
branded  in  human  nature,  and  perpetual  memorials  of  that 
first  sin,  that  thereby  man  might  be  reminded  that  he  never 
ought  to  lose  sight  of  bis  original  state,  whence  he  had 
fallen,  but  to  preserve  a  modesty,  and  aim  most  fervently  at 
the  perfect  holiness  of  bis  heavenly  country.  As  regards 
unavoidable  faults  and  defects,  the  most  learned  Archbishop 
of  Spalato'*^  holds,  according  to  the  mind  of  the  ancients, 
"  that  these  conditions,  the  particularities  and  cii'cumstances 
of  perfect  obedience,  which  are  impossible  to  human  weakness 
aidcd  by  grace,  are  not  now  commanded."  Very  cautioiisly 
had  St.  Austin  stated  the  question  in  the  passage  which  we 
first  cited  for  this  thesis,  in  these  words  :  "  Whether  the 
law  can  be  observed  in  this  life,  '  so  far  as  comes  under  pre- 
cept/"  Whcncc  it  is  evident  that  that  most  pious  doctor 
thought  that  those  conditions  of  the  eternal  law,  and  those 
degrees  and  circumstances  of  universal  perfectiou,  which  are 
not  possible  to  be  done  by  fallen  man,  even  through  the 
grace  of  Christ  promised  in  the  Gospcl,  are  not  ordercd  in 
the  new  law;  which  is  all  that  the  Archbishop  of  Spalato 
affirmcd.     Tims  far  for  the  tcstinionies  of  the  Fathcrs. 

>■  Antonius  de  Doininis,  lib.  vü.  de  Rcp.  Eccles.  ii.  §  135,  136,  139  and  H9. 


Thesis  sixth.  171 

§  14.  Lastly,  our  thesis  is  confirmable  by  most  piain  s TR ic. 
reason.  For  besides  its  beiug  approved  by  the  consent  of  all  -^^'^^' 
nations,  and  sliould  tlierefore  be  counted  among  Kotval  evvotai, 
that  no  one  can  be  bound  to  do  impossibilities  :  (wliicli  is 
true  not  only  as  regards  man,  but  even  especially  as  regards 
God  :)  it  must  also  be  observ^ed,  that  tlie  Gospel  law  is  a  law 
of  graee,  made  by  a  good  God  in  Christ.  And  therefore 
though  it  were  granted  that  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
jnstice,  and  consequeutly  the  wisdom  of  God,  yet  certainly  is 
it  diametrically  opposed  to  grace,  to  make  a  law  for  man 
whieh  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  fulfil. 

§  15.  Thesis  sixth.  Although  according  to  the  Gospel  or 
law  of  Christ,  all  the  degrees  of  virtue,  which  can  be  per- 
formed  by  us  through  the  grace  of  the  same  Gospel,  are 
matter  of  precept ;  yet  all  come  not  under  a  precept  which 
binds  them  upon  us  strictly  and  precisely  under  pain  of 
eternal  damnation.  For  not  on  account  of  every  the  least 
failing,  even  such  as  through  grace  we  might  have  avoided, 
does  the  law  of  the  Gospel  denounce  on  man  exclusion  from 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  much  less  infliet  the  pains  of  hell : 
but  on  account  of  certain  sins  only,  which  are  inconsistent 
with  the  end  of  the  law,  charity  or  the  love  of  God  above  all 
things,  and  consequeutly  with  the  friendship  of  God.  Of 
this  thesis  there  are  tAvo  parts :  Ist.  Tliat  in  the  law  of  the 
Gospel,  all  degrees  of  virtue,  possible  to  man  through  the 
grace  of  the  same  Gospel,  are  matter  of  precept.  2ndly.  That 
nevertheless,  the  perfection  of  such  virtue  by  no  means  comes 
under  a  precept  which  binds  us  strictly  under  pain  of  eternal 
death.  The  former  is  proved  from  those  passages  of  the 
Gospel  in  which  the  whole  perfection  of  righteousness  pos- 
sible to  man  is  expressly  enjoined,  as  Matt.  v.  48,  and  else- 
where  repeatedly.  That  command  especiallj'^,  "  Grow  in  2  Pet.  3. 8. 
grace,"  &c.,  has  no  bounds  or  limits  within  the  utmost  per- 
fection of  virtue  which  we  can  acquire  through  the  grace  of 
Christ;  i.  e.  we  are  bound  always  to  grow  and  increase  in 
grace  and  virtue,  tili  we  conie  to  "the  measure  of  füll  age" 
(as  speaks  Clement  of  Alexandria).  Whence  (as  a  remark  Strom,  vi. 
by  the  way)  it  is  clear  that  there  is  no  place  in  the  law  of  P"  ^^^' 
Christ  for  works  of  snpererogation,  as  they  are  called. 

§  16.  The  second  part  of  our  thesis  is  proved  beyond  all 


172  Thesis  sixth. 

s  T  R I  c.  question  from  tliose  passages  of  tlie  New  Testament  in  which 
^  the  penalty  of  exclusion  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  of 


eternal  death  is  set  down  peculiarly  to  certain  definite  sins. 
1  Cor.  6.  There  are  two  passages  of  tliis  kind  most  notable :  "  Know 
^'  ^^'  je  not  that  tlie  unrigliteous  sliall  not  inherit  tlie  kingdom  of 
God  ?  Be  not  deceived :  neither  fornicators,  nor  idolaters, 
nor  adultererSj  nor  effeminate,  nor  abusers  of  tliemselves  with 
mankind,  nor  tbieves,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards,  nor  re- 
vilers,  nor  extortioners  shall  inberit  tbe  kingdom  of  God." 
Gal.  5.  And,  "  Now  tbe  works  of  tbe  flesb  are  manifest,  wbicb  are 
19—21.  ^i^gse-  adultery,  fornieation,  imcleanness,  lasciviousness,  ido- 
latry,  witcbcraft,  batred,  variance,  emulations,  wratb,  strife, 
seditions,  beresies,  envyings,  murders,  di'unkenness,  revell- 
ings,  and  sucb  Hke ;  of  tbe  wbicb  I  teil  yoii  before,  as  I  bave 
also  told  you  in  time  past,  tbat  tbey  wbicb  do  sucb  tbings 
sball  not  inberit  tbe  kingdom  of  God."  In  the  latter  pas- 
sage,  wlien  St.  Paul,  after  tbe  enumeration  of  certain  mortal 
sins,  adds,  '  and  sucb  like,'  it  is  piain  tbat  be  meant  tbat  all 
tbe  sins  tbat  are  analogous  to  tbese,  i.  e.  wbicb  proceed  from 
tbe  same  evil  will,  are  to  be  added  to  tbe  list  of  mortal  sins 
recountcd  one  by  one  by  bim.  Wben,  bowever,  tbe  Apostle 
says  in  tbe  same  place  of  tbose  wbo  abstain  from  tbe  sins 
mentioned  by  bim  and  sucb  like,  and  practise  tbe  opposite 
virtues,  tbat  '  against  tbese  tbere  is  uo  law,'  be  sbews  clearly 
enough  tbat  tbere  is  no  law  wbicb  denounces  eternal  deatb 
on  sucb  men.  Witli  tbese  passages  must  be  compared  tbose 
wbicb  speak  of  certain  sins  to  wbicb  rigbteous  men  are 
liable,  even  wbile  tbe  observance  of  tbe  law  is  attributed  to 
tbem,  and  life  and  eternal  salvation  are  promised  tbem,  as  in 
James  iii.  2,  and  elsewbere.  From  tbese  testimonies  of  Scrip- 
ture  compared  togetber,  it  follows  tbat  tbere  are  certain  sins 
wbicb  do  not  take  away  tbe  rigbteousness  and  the  friendsbip 
of  God,  nor  bring  with  tbem  eternal  deatb. 

§  17.  Here  it  is  objected  by  some,  tbat  tbe  Gospel,  as  far 
as  it  contains  a  repetition  and  renewal  of  tbe  original  law, 
denounces  eternal  death  on  every  sin,  even  the  sligbtest,  and 
on  every,  even  tbe  least  failing :  but,  tbat  as  far  as  it  is  a  law 
of  grace  and  indulgence,  it  forgives  some  sins  to  tbose  who 
rcpent ;  consequently,  tbe  cause  of  some  sins  not  being  mor- 
tal is  not  that  tbe  law  of  Christ  does  not  threaten  tbem  with 


Thesis  sixth.  173 

death,  but  that  the  same  law  under  another  view  grants  for-  s  t  R  i  r. 

•  •  XVII 

giveness  of  tliese  sins  on  repentance.    This,  liowever,  is  to  no    ' 


purpose  at  all,  for,  in  tlie  first  place,  they  Annot  bring  forward 
one  passage  of  Scripture  to  confirm  this  assertion,  ^-iz.  that  the 
Gospel  denounces  death  on  everj'-,  even  the  least,  failing.  The 
words  of  St.  James,  which  seem  most  to  favoui'  this  opinion,  eh.  2.  10, 
are  plainly  not  to  the  point,  as  I  have  shewn  cleariy  and  at 
length.     Nor  are  those  passages  of  Scripture  more  to  the  Harm.  11. 
purpose,  which  attribute  in  general  terms  these  and  the  like  ^j''  "  §2. 
effects  to  sin,  viz.  enmity  with  God,  everlasting  perdition  and 
death ;  as,   "  The  wages  of  sin  is  death ;"  "  He  that  com-  Rom.6.23. 
mitteth  sin  is  of  the  devil  /'    "  Thou  batest  all  workers  of  p^  5'  ^ 
iniquity;"  "The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die:"  for  it  will  Ezek.  18. 
be  piain  to  any  one  who  weighs  these  passages,  that  they 
must  be  understood  not  of  any  sin,  but  of  that  only,  which 
involves  the  wbole  nature  of  sin,  i.  e.  sin  which  is  called  mortal. 
Secondly,  They  say  that  some  sins  on  this  account  only  are 
not  mortal,  viz.  because,  by  the  Gospel,  they  are  forgiven 
to  those  who  repeut,  as  far  as  it  is  a  law  of  grace ;  but  no 
one  who  considers  the  matter  attentively  will  be  satisfied  by 
this.     For  according  to  the  law  of  Cki'ist,  in  this  view  there 
is  no  sin  at  all  so  grievous  which  cannot  be  pardoned  to  one 
seriously  repenting :  as  will  be  shewn  in  the  following  thesis. 
§  18.  From  these  considerations  a  question  much  agitated 
among   di^dnes   may  easily   be   determined :    viz.  Whether 
there  is  any  sin  in  its  own  nature  veuial  or  not  mortal? 
For  the  question  is  not,  \Miether  God  can  justly,  setting 
aside  every  Divine  covenant,  exclude  man,  for  the  slightest 
possible  sin,  or  for  the  least  failing  in  righteousness,  from 
the  kingdom  of  Heaven  ?    For  surely  God  could  justly  (as  I 
have  often  reminded  the  reader)  deny  man,  even  liviug  most 
perfectly  in  a  perfect  state,  and  vAih.  no  fault  of  sin  or  blemish 
of  defect,  that  heavenly  life  (inasmuch  as  it  is  a  gift  of  His 
immense   liberality).     Nor  will  any  sound    di^dne   question 
this :  for  those  sophists  among  the  Roman  CathoHcs,  who 
have  not  hesitated  to  aflBrm  that  some  good  works  of  a  man, 
though  fallen  and  impcrfect,  can  of  merit  (putting  aside  the  ex  con- 
consideration  of  the  Divine  covenant)  deserve  the  happiucss   '^"°' 
of  heaven,  were  surely  best  disposed  of  in  Bedlam.     Nay 
I  do  not  here  question  whether  God  can   justly  assign   a 


174  Thesis  sixth. 

s  T  R  I  c.  man,  in  every  otlier  respect  rigliteous^  and  seriously  bent  on 

-^ '—  observing  all  His  commands,  for  tlie  slightest  failing,  suppose 

for  immoderate  la*gliter,  for  a  word  spoken  at  random,  or 
for  some  affection  of  concupiscence  sliglitlj  assented  to,  then 
checked  from  reverence  to  tbe  Divine  Law  and  suffocated  in 
the  birth,  to  the  dreadful  torments  of  bell  ?  If  tbis  be  not 
thouglit  a  liard  saying,  and  incompatible  with  Divine  equity 
and  mercy,  I  will  no  fartber  discuss  tbe  question.  Nor 
indeed  would  I,  a  poor  miserable  man,  venture  to  bold  any 
tbing  for  certain,  or  rasbly  to  pronounce  of  tbe  rigbt  of  tbe 
Most  Higb  God,  altbougb  in  a  matter,  as  it  appears,  quite 
piain.  But  tbe  discussion  of  tbese  questions  (in  my  judg- 
ment)  is  useless,  and  quite  away  from  tbe  point :  tbe  state  of 
tbe  question  is  tbis  :  Whctber,  in  fad,  God  batb  given  a  law 
to  fallen  man,  by  wbicb  any  sin  wbatever,  even  tbe  sligbtest 
and  least  avoidable  failing  of  rigbteousness,  is  probibited 
under  pain  of  eternal  damnation,  i.  e.  botb  of  perpetual 
exclusion  from  tbe  kingdom  of  beaven,  and  tbe  torments  of 
hell  awaiting  it  after  tbis  life  ?  Surely,  (as  one  batb  well, 
tbougb  in  barbarous,  i.  e.  in  scbolastic  language  expressed 
it,)  "  tbe  ground  of  sin  is  derived  from  tbe  law  of  God,  not 
prcciscly  and  wbolly  from  tbe  nature  of  tbe  act :  for  had 
tbere  been  no  law,  tbere  would  bave  been,  properly  speaking, 
no  sin.  As,  tberefore,  tbe  ground  of  sin,  as  sucb,  'bas  re- 
ference  to  tbe  law  of  God :'  so  also  tbe  ground  of  mortal  or 
venial  sin  is  to  be  derived  tbence."  Tbe  negative  side  of  tbe 
question,  so  put,  can  be  supported  by  tbis  argument :  The  law 
of  the  Gospel  is,  of  all  laws  given  to  fallen  man,  the  most 
Rom.i.is.  perfect,  and  in  it  is  most  fully  'revealed  the  wrath  of  God 
against  all  ungodliness  and  uurightcousness  of  men."  No 
whcre,  surely,  more  clearly  (no  wbere  so  clcarly)  than  in  the 
Gospel  is  shewn  the  nature  and  guilt  of  sin,  and  wbat  pun- 
ishment  awaits  every  sin  in  tbe  world  to  come.  Heavenly 
rewards  and  infernal  punishments,  virtue  and  vice,  (all  which 
in  past  agcs  were  but  darkly  known,)  since  the  Promulgation 
of  the  law  of  Christ,  bave  been  put  forward  by  God  in  tbe 
clearest  light.  Now  in  the  Gospel  the  will  of  God  is  no 
wbere  revealcd  such  as  that  the  pain  of  eternal  damnation 
is  decreed  against  any,  even  the  Icast,  avoidable  failing 
of  rijjbteousness.     The  proof  lies  upon  the  asserter.     If  any 


Thesis  sixth.  175 

one  Avill  bring  forward  a  text  by  which  this  may  be  proved  s  T  R  i  c. 
I  will  yield  at  once  to  the  truth  disclosed,  and  own  myself  -2hXIIi_ 
defeated.     But   I   bave   already   adduced   sufficiently   clear 
passages  to  prove  tbe  contrary. 

§  19.  Certain  schoolmen,  and  those  of  no  despicable  autho- 
rity,  bave  gone  fartber,  and  held  tbat  tbis  equity  and  mercy 
of  God^  by  wbicb  He  does  not  decree  deatb  against  every  sin, 
belongs  to  every  Di^dne  covenant  in  common  with  tbe  Gospel. 
For,  tbey  say,  wben  tbe  Most  Higb  so  bumbles  Himself  for 
men,  as  to  enter  into  a  covenant  with  tbem,  He  puts  on  tbe 
form  of  a  friend;  and  among  friends  tbe  least  offence  will  not 
dissolve  friendsbip.  Hence  Scotns,  Altisiodorensis,  Franciscus 
Maironis,  Gabriel,  Alimaynus,  and  others,  bave  not  besitated  to 
assert  tbat  man  even  under  tbe  first  covenant  could  bave  sinned 
venially,  as  tbey  usually  speak,  altbougb  indeed  tbey  seem 
to  restrict  tbeir  assertion  to  tbat  kind  of  venial  sin  wliicb  is 
called  of  its  own  nature  venial  on  account  of  tbe  ligbtness  of 
tbe  matter,  even  if  it  be  coramitted  witb  füll  deliberation ; 
for  wbicb  restriction  I  for  my  part  do  not  see  tbe  reason. 
For  let  US  suppose  tbat  onr  first  motber  Eve,  wben  tempted 
by  tbe  de\dl,  bad  inclined  but  slightly  to  tbe  eating  of  tbe  for- 
bidden  fi'uit,  and  immediately  cbecked  berself  by  reverence 
for  tbe  Divine  Law,  and  from  tbe  grateful  remembrance  of  tbe 
exceeding  kindnesses  by  wbicb  God  bad  bound  ber  to  Himself 
renounced  tbe  de^dl's  temptation,  and  abstained  band  and 
beart  fi'om  tbe  tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  Surely 
in  tbis  supposition  tbere  is  notbing  wbicb  is  impossible,  or 
inconsistent  witb  tbe  Constitution  of  our  first  parents.  For 
tbougb  some  say  tbat  our  first  parents  were  so  created  by 
nature  tbat  tbey  could  commit  no  sin  wbicb  was  not  com- 
plete,  and  done  witb  füll  piu'pose,  yet  this  is  affirmed  without 
any  grounds ;  nay  it  is  refuted  fi'om  tbe  bistory  of  tbe  first 
sin,  wbicb  sbews  plainly  tbat  Eve  went  on  by  degrees  to  tbe 
complete  perpetration  of  tbe  di'eadful  deed.  Now  it  is  asked, 
wbetber  from  tbat  inclination  alone,  wbicb  without  doubt 
would  bave  been  sin,  sbe  would  bave  fallen  entirely  from 
God's  favour  and  covenant?  He  wbo  affirms  tbis  will  do 
so  gi'atuitously,  as  he  will  not  find  a  syllable  in  Scripture  to 
Support  bis  assertion.  On  tbe  other  band,  tbe  Divine  threat 
was  conceived  in  these  words  :  "  On  tbe  day  that  thou  eatest 


176  Thesis  seventh. 

s  T  R  T  c.  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die  /'  whicli  \rords  speak  certainly 
*     of  a  sin  fully  perpetrated ;  to  which  a  füll  determination  of 


mind  to  eat  the  forbidden  fiaiit,  wliicli  -woiild  have  proceeded 

to  act  had  it  not  been  exteruallv  hindered^  would  have  been 

equivalent.     For  support   of  tlie   doctrine^  whicli  holds  that 

man  under  tbe  first  covenant  could  have   sinned  yenially, 

some  passages  are  adduced  from  St.  Austin,  veiy  apposite 

in  my  judgnient,  wliicli  you  may  read  'with  the  auswers  to 

1,  2ae.       the  same  in  Thomas  Aquinas.     But  I  Tvill  not  undertake  this 

and^Esrius  ^uestion,  but  rather  leave  it  open^  as  not  veiy  neeessaiy  to 

in  lib.  iii.   dctermine. 

5  7.'     *  §  20.  It  will  be  more  to  the  reader^s  pm^pose,  I  think,  if 

vre  meet   the    abuse    of  the    above-mentioned    doctrine   by 

suggesting  some  useful  advice  to  him  on  the  subject.     We 

de  Prje-     should  ever  remember  the  words  of  St.  Bernard  hereupon  : 

üfspens     "Genial  sins  are  not  deemed  criminal,  except  when  by  con- 

c.  li.        tempt  they  are  tiirned  into  custom  and  habit;"  and  afterwards^ 

"The  pride  of  the  scomer  and  the  obstinacy  of  the  impenitent 

make  no  small  fault  in  the  matter  of  the  least  command- 

ments,  and  change  a  slight  blemish  of  simple  transgression 

into  a  crime  of  grievous  rebellion.'^     Wherefore  the  doctrine 

of  certain  Roman  Catholics  is  to  be  abhori'ed,  who  fearlessly 

affirm  that  a  man  can,  without  the  guilt  of  a  grievous  offence, 

commit  venial  sins  in  the  "svay  of  contempt :  we  must  rather 

hold^  on  the  other  band,  that  all  sin  is  mortal  to  him  -«ho 

does  not  earnestly  labour  to  escape  all  sin. 

§  21.  TJiesis  seventh.  Pierein  is  seen  the  great  indulgence 
of  the  Gospel,  that  it  promises,  on  condition  of  repentance,  the 
pardon  of  all  sins,  even  the  most  grievous,  Tvhether  committed 
before  or  after  grace  received ;  but  this  repentancc,  as  regards 
the  gi'eater  sins,  which  are  called  'mortal/  must  be  exact,  and 
pcrfectly  "svorked  out.  This  thesis,  though  it  may  not  seem 
absolutely  necessary  to  our  purpose,  yet  I  thought  should  be 
added,  because  by  its  addition  we  shall  present  the  reader 
with  a  füll  view  of  the  Gospel  covenant  (at  least  as  far  as  is 
possil)le  within  the  limits  of  this  little  Dissertation).  The 
threatening  thcn  of  the  law  of  Christ,  by  which  eternal  death 
is  dcnounced  on  certain  definite  sins,  is  not  at  once  pcremp- 
tory  and  absolute  in  effect,  but  of  debt  only;  i.  e.  though 
a  man  Avho  has  been  once  involved  in  any  of  those  sins,  is 


TTiesis  seventh.  177 

necessarilv  liable  bv  the  law  of  Christ  to  eternal  death,  it  s  T  R  l  c. 

*                                                  •                                              XVII 
does  not  necessarily  follow  tliat  he  miist  die ;  for  here  comes  — — 


in  to  his  aid  the  grace  of  the  Gospel,  in  which  repentance  is 
held  out  as  a  second  plank  after  shipwreck.  New  there  are 
three  propositions  contained  in  this  last  thesis :  1.  tliat  in 
the  Gospel  the  forgireness  of  all  sins,  even  the  most  giievous, 
is  proniised  to  those  who  truly  repent;  2.  that  this  for- 
giveness  extends  itself  even  to  the  heavier  sins,  which  are 
committed  after  the  grace  of  the  Gospel  has  been  received ; 
3.  that  this  condition  is  required  in  repentance  of  mortal 
sins,  that  it  be  exact,  and  perfectly  worked  oiit.  The  first 
proposition  vre  need  have  little  anxiety  to  prove,  as  it  is 
allowed  by  all  Cliristians :  the  second  was  formerly  denied 
by  the  Novatians ;  and  to  this  day  Christians  who  have  fallen 
into  sin  are  too  frequently  in  doubt  respecting  it,  so  that  it 
may  be  worth  while  to  support  it  by  a  few  words. 

§  22.  That  hope  of  pardon  still  remains  for  those  who 
after  their  first  turning  to  God  go  back  into  great  and 
grievous  sins,  and  that  they  can  be  restored  afresh  by  pcni- 
tence  and  repentance^  may  be  proved  by  many  arguments. 
Ist,  in  the  Old  Testament  is  the  well-known  passage  of  the 
prophet  Jeremiah  preaching  the  Gospel  under  the  Law,  Jer. 
iii.  1,  2,  7,  12,  13,  14,  22,  whcre  God  through  the  prophet — 
after  His  people  with  whom  He  had  entered  into  a  gracious 
covenant,  and  whom  He  had  bound  to  Himself  by  the 
greatest  kindnesses,  had  fallen  into  the  sin  of  grievous  and 
oft-repeated  idolatry — exhorts  them  by  many  arguments  and 
in  wondrous  way  to  repentance,  or  rather  allures  them  by 
assuring  them  of  the  hope  of  pardon,  and  promising  the 
healing  of  all  their  backslidings.  2nd]y,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment there  is  the  clear  and  universally  extending  announee- 
ment  of  St.  John  the  Apostle  concerning  the  sins  of 
Christians  committed  after  faith  and  baptism ;  "  My  little  i  Joh.  2. 
children,  these  things  write  I  unto  you,  that  ye  sin  not.  And  ' 
if  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus 
Christ  the  righteous :  and  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our 
sins;"  where  it  is  piain  enough  that  the  Apostle  speaks  of 
the  more  grievous  and  the  more  properh^  called  sins ;  and 
that  even  from  the  conditional  particles  or  phrase  of  uncer- 
tainty,  '  if  any  man  sin.'     For  surely  he  would  have  spoken 

BULL.  j^- 


178  Thesis  seventh. 

s  T  R I  c.  otherwise,  had  he  meant  sins  to  which  the  best  men  in  this 

Hl-  life  are  liable_,  of  wliich  St.  James  says,  "  In  many  things  we 

Jas.  3.  2.  Qg-gj^jj  ^-^i»  Sq  ^^^^  ^j^g  meaning  of  the  Apostle  is  clear ;  I 
exhort  you  my  sons,  now  cleansed  by  the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance,  to  take  all  pains,  lest  je  fall  back  into  your  old  sins : 
but  if  any  of  you  have  fallen  into  any  such  grievous  sin,  let 
him  not  cast  away  all  hope,  for  we  have  an  advocate,  &c. 

§  23.  3rdly,  the  same  is  proved  by  the  express  commauds 
of  repentance  in  the  New  Testament  made  to  Christians  who 
have  fallen  grievously ;  which  would  be  to  no  purpose,  were 
there  no  hope  of  pardon  for  them  on  their  repenting.  Of 
Rev.  2.  5.  this  kind  is  the  injunction  of  our  Lord,  "Remember  there- 
fore  from  whence  thou  art  fallen,  and  repent,  and  do  the 
first  works  :  or  eise  I  will  come  unto  thee  quickly,  and  will 
remove  thy  candlestick  out  of  bis  place,  except  thou  repent." 
But  most  worthy  of  attention  are  our  Saviour's  words  in 
the  same  chapter  to  the  Angel  of  the  Church  of  Thyatira, 
VV.20— 22.  "Notwithstanding  I  have  a  few  tliings  against  thee,  because 
thou  sufferest  that  woman  Jezebel,  which  calleth  herseif  a 
prophetess,  to  teach  and  to  seduce  My  servants  to  commit 
fornication,  and  to  eat  things  sacrificed  unto  idols,  and  I 
gave  her  space  to  repent  of  her  fornication  and  she  repented 
not.  Behold  I  avlU  cast  her  into  a  bed,  and  them  that  commit 
adultery  with  her  into  gi'eat  tribiüation,  except  they  repent 
of  their  deeds."  Here  some  ancients  think  that  this  Jezebel 
was  a  certain  woman,  the  wife  of  a  bishop,  who  by  her  forni- 
cation and  perverse  doctrine  drew  many  in  the  Church  of 
Thyath-a  to  impiety.  Others  (and  more  rightly  in  my  judg- 
ment)  understand  Jezebel  mystically  as  the  Gnostic  party, 
those  monsters  of  men,  who  by  their  dreadfiü  doctrine  of  a 
lawful  fornication,  and  of  eating  things  offered  to  idols,  against 
Acts  15.  the  express  decree  of  the  Apostles,  and  by  the  detestable 
practice  of  these  crimes,  had  defiled  the  \'irgin  Church  of 
Christ  newly  espoused  to  him  by  the  Apostles.  Now  this  is 
either  way  equally  to  our  purpose.  For  Ist,  it  is  e^ident 
that  this  Jezebel  had  perpetrated  these  deeds  after  recei^^ng 
the  faith  of  Christ,  since  she  is  said  to  have  usurped  the  office 
of  teaching  and  prophespng  in  the  Chiu'ch  of  Thyatira. 
2ndly,  the  crimes  were  enormous,  into  which  this  monster 
in  the  fonn  of  Christianity  had  cast  herself,  nz.  fornication. 


Thesis  seventh.  1 79 

adultery,  idolatry.     3rdly,  these  most  grievous  sins  she  not  STRIC. 

only  perpetrated  herself,  but  slie  was  tlie  author  of  others' '— 

doing  them ;  and  that  too  by  defending  tbera  as  lawful,  and 
as  not  prohibited  by  any  command  of  Christ;  which  was 
the  heigbt  of  impiety.  4tlily^  yet  to  tbis  Jezebel  with  her 
associates  was  time  given  by  her  most  merciful  Lord  to 
repent  of  these  sins;  consequently  there  is  no  doubt  He 
would  not  have  denied  them  the  pardon  of  their  crimes,  if 
they  had  repented.  ötldy,  after  they  had  long  abused  the 
long-suflfering  of  God,  and  had  strengthened  themselves  in 
their  sins  against  the  warnings  of  Christ  through  His  servants, 
(O  the  mercy  of  our  Saviom-,  never  to  be  euough  magnified!) 
the  Lord  denounces  destruction  on  them,  not  by  a  peremp- 
tory  edict,  but  with  this  exception,  "  except  they  repent 
from  their  works."  Perhaps  no  passage  from  the  Scrip- 
tures  could  be  brought  forward  more  apposite  than  this 
against  the  Novatian  heresy  :  see  however  2  Cor.  xii.  21.  and 
Gal.  vi.  1. 

§  24.  4thly.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  examples  of  David,  iCor.  5.  i, 
Peter,  and  the   incestuous    Christian.      Lastly,   this   tnith  „^^'g^j  ^j^^ 
which  our  Lord  has  taught  us  by  promises  and  examples,  -  Cor.  2. 6. 
He  has  also  sealed  by  a  Sacrament.     For  Christ  hath  in- 
stituted  two  Sacraments  in  His  Church,  Baptism,  and  His 
Holy  Supper,  and  both  to  seal  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins. 
Of  Baptism,  that  it  is  instituted  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
no  one  doubts :  of  the  cup  also  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  the 
Lord  Himself  hath  said  that  it  is  His  "  blood  of  the  New  Mat.  26. 
Testament,    shed   for  the   remission   of  sins.^'     Hence  the     '     ' 
Catholic  Church  in  her  prayers  at  the  altar,  prays  for  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  on  account  of  the  merit  of  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  commemorated   in   the   Eueharist.     Thus   the   most 
ancient   Liturgy,   "  and  send   Thy   Holy  Spirit   upon   tliis  in  Consti- 
sacrifice,  the  Witness  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Lord  Jesus;  to  8'i2/°^ " 
make  this  bread  the  Body  of  Thy  Christ,  and  this  cup  the 
Blood  of  Thy  Christ,  that  they  who  partake  of  it  may  be 
strengthened  unto  godliness,  obtain  forgiveness  of  sins,^'  &c. 
In  the  same  way  all  the  Liturgies.     To  what  purpose,  j^ou 
will  say,  is  all  this  ?     Forsooth,  that  as  by  Baptism  all  sins, 
committed  before  the  grace  of  the  Gospcl  has  been  received, 
are  washed  away,  so  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  sealed  to  thosc 

N  2 


180  Thesis  seventh. 

STRIC.  who  truly  repent  the  forsriveness  of  all  sins  which  are  cora- 

XVII.         .  . 
—  mitted  after  baptism  and  regeneration. 

§  25.    Against   this   piain    trutli,    the   Novatians    of  old 

brouglit  forward  two  passages,  Heb.  vi.  4, 5,  6;  x.  26,  27,  &c., 

but  tliese  passages  prove  notbing  for  tbem.     For  Ist,  tbey 

plainly  speak  not  of  any  sins  committed  after  baptism,  albeit 

the  most  grievous;  but  of  total  apostacy  or  defection  from 

Christianity.     Hence  in  the  form  er  passage  these  apostates 

are  said  to  "crucify  the  Lord  afresh,  and  put  Hirn  to  an 

open  shame,"  &c.,  i.  e.  they  declare  Hirn  as  an  impostor,  and 

deserving  of  the  cross,  and  consequently  they  count  all  His 

religion  as  a  mere  imposture ;  and  in  the  latter  passage  they 

are  said  "to  trample  under  foot  the  Son  of  God;  to  count 

the  blood  of  the  covenant  wherewith  they  were  sanctified,  an 

unholy  thing,  and  to  do  despite  to  the  Spirit  of  grace."    2ndly, 

as   regards  these  dreadful  apostates,  it   is  certain,  if  they 

repent,  that  they  will  obtain  pardon  of  their  sins ;  to  "which 

end,  in  a  former  passage,  the  author  of  the  Epistle  says  that 

it  is  impossible  to  '  renew'  these  deserters  of  Christianity 

*  again  to  repentance  :'  plainly  intimating,  that  if  they  could 

repent  again  they  might  return  into  God's  favour.     3rdly. 

Lastly,  the  most  learned  Interpreters  think  that  it  is  by  no 

means  an  absolute  impossibility  for  such  apostates  to  repent, 

of  whom  the  inspired  writer  is  here  speaking.     For  often  in 

Scripture  a  thing  which  is  very  difficult  is  called  'impossible,' 

as  Matt.  xix.  23 — 26 ;  Gal.  iv.  15,  and  elsewhere.     The  truth 

is,  that  the  more  grievously  men  sin,  the  more  difficult  is  it 

to  do  well :  and  where  so  great  grace  has  been  despised,  so 

that  it  has  no  power  to  bridle  and  restrain  a  man's  will,  there 

a  recoverj''  is  most  difficult,  nay,  almost  impossible.     For  it 

can  onlybe  effected  by  inducement;  but  the  greatest  induce- 

ments  have  already  been  despised  by  such  an  apostate.     For 

what  inducement  can  there  be  in  this  life,  more  noble,  or 

more  excellent  than  illumination,  the  tasting  of  the  good 

Word  &c.  ?     Meanwhile  all  this  is  no  obstacle  against  the 

recovery    even    of  svich   an    apostate   by  the    extraordinary 

grace  of  God.     But  all  these   things,    though   they   are    a 

comfort   to  those  who  have  fallen   grievously,  and   are  in 

earnest  in  returning  to  God,  yet  by  no  mcans  lend  support  to 

the  irapiety  of  those  Christians  who,  turning  the  great  grace 


Thesis  seventh,  181 

of  God  into  lasciviousness^  give  the  rein  to  grievous  sins,  STRIC. 
relying  on  the  presumption  that  tliey  wiU  hereafter  repent  ^^^^' 
of  the  sarae,  and  obtain  pardon  of  them.  The  madness  of 
such  men  is  extreme ;  for  although  pardon  in  the  Gospel  is 
promised  to  the  fallen  on  repentance,  yet  no  where  is  either 
grace  or  time  promised  them  for  performing  a  meet  repent- 
ance.  To  those  especially  our  Lord  usually  denies  this  grace 
who  presume  most  in  expecting  it. 

§  26.  The  third  proposition  remains  to  be  set  forth  by  us 
briefly.  Repentance,  which  is  required  in  the  Gospel  for 
mortal  sins,  carries  this  condition  Avith  it,  that  it  be  exact^ 
and  perfectly  worked  out.  In  the  first  place,  as  mortal  sins 
are  of  themselves  grievous,  and  in  the  coui'se  of  a  Christian 
life  are  more  rare  and  extraordinary :  so  the  repentance,  Ps.  51 ; 
which  is  necessarily  required  for  their  expurgation,  ought  to  be  ^^^^'j^'  ^ 
especial,  more  exact,  and  extraordinary.  Next,  the  repent-  38 ;  2  Cor. 
ance  necessary  for  the  remission  of  mortal  sins,  and  for  the 
salvation  of  those  who  commit  them,  ought  to  be  perfectly 
worked  out,  i.  e.  it  ought  to  go  out  into  a  real  and  actual  cessa- 
tion  from  all  sins  of  this  kind ;  forsooth,  that  would  not  be  a  Prov.  28. 
mortal  sin,  in  which  a  man  might  persist  without  the  loss  of 
salvation.  But  repentance  required  for  the  forgiveness  of 
venial  sins,  need  not  necessarily  be  carried  out  in  every 
action.  For  even  the  best  men  can  live,  and  die  too,  witli 
such  kind  of  sins.  I  add,  that  this  cessation  ought  to  be  not 
only  from  act,  but  also  from  affection  of  every  mortal  sin; 
and  that  the  veiy  habit  of  sin  must  be  shaken  and  cast  out. 
Would  that  they  who  trust  in  what  is  called  a  death-bed 
repentance,  would  consider  this  seriously  before  it  is  too  late, 
who  are  persuaded  that  they  can,  on  their  dying  bed,  and 
almost  at  the  very  point  of  death,  perform  a  repentance 
meet  for  mortal  sins  !  These  men  would  not  be  charged  with 
such  folly,  if  (as  the  generality  of  them  dream)  the  ex- 
clamation,  "  Have  mercy  on  me,  O  God,"  a  thousand  times 
repeated,  or  the  dropping  of  a  few  tears  forced  out  by  terror 
of  approaching  death,  or  lastly  the  absolution  sought  by  way 
of  custom  from  a  priest  too  indulgent  and  too  flattering  to 
the  wretched  soul,  sufficed  for  repentance  from  mortal 
sin,  and  cven  for  the  forgiveness  of  the  same.  But  saving 
repentance  is  a  far  diflfercut  tliing.     The  sacred  oracles  cry 


183  Quotation  from  the  pseudo-St.  Ambrose 

s  T  R I  c,  out  that  tlie  old  man  must  be  put  off,  mortified :  tliat  the 

XVII 
'—  flesh  must  be  crucified  witb  its  affectious ;  '  this  is  tbe  labour, 

this  tbe  werk/   a  ^vork  indeed^  which^  witbin  tbe  space  of 

a  few  bours,  can  scarcely,  nay  cannot  (except  by  a  miracle  of 

Dmne  grace,  scarce  to  be  expected  by  tbe  despisers  of  so 

great  grace)  be  performed  by  a  man  infirm  and  languisbing, 

and  unfit  for  all  tbe  common  purposes  of  life.     On  tbe  wbole 

tben  it  comes  to  tbis.  Tbe  ver}'-  least  tbat  is  sucb^  (as  tbey  say,) 

er  lowest  degree  of  rigbteousness^  -wbicb  is  absolutely  required 

for  salvation  from  us  in  tbe  Gospel,  is  tbat  sooner  or  later, 

some  time  at  least  before  we  depart  from  tbis  life,  we  rid  our- 

selves  of  all  sin  on  wbicb  eternal  deatb  is  denounced  by  tbe 

Gospeb  from  all  tbe  works  of  tbe  flesb  enumerated  by  St.  Paul 

in  tbe  passage  above  quoted.  Gab  v.  19,  20,  21 ;  and  to  bring 

fortb  tbe  fruits  of  tbe  Holy  Spirit  contrary  to  tbose  mentioned 

in  tbe  same  place  ver.  22,  23.     Wliosoever  dies  not  in  tbis 

State  of  rigbteousness,  dies  eternally.     Hard  as  tbis  saying 

may  appear  to  tbe  dissolute  age  Avberein  we  bve,  it  is  never- 

theless  most  true,  unless  truth  itself  deceive  us.     God  graut 

tbat  we  tbink  betimes  on  wbat  is  of  so  great  moment  to  our 

salvation ! 


STRICTURE  XVIII. 

ON  II.  DISS.  viii.  §  li.  p.  94. 

Here  I  say  tbat  tbe  words  'in  tbe  sigbt  of  God^  in  the 
Apostle's  conclusion  Rom.  iii.  20,  are  added  as  significant 
and  empbatic;  '^because  tbe  law  bad  a  certain  justification 
peculiar  to  itself  before  men,  wbich  was  effectual  in  procuring 
earthly  happiness,  but  not  tbe  kingdom  of  heaven.^'  Tben 
to  confirm  this  Observation,  I  quote  tbe  words  of  tbe  author 
of  tbe  Commentaries  wbich  are  attributed  to  St.  Ambrose,  as 
an  excellent  explanation.  "  It  is  true  tbat  no  man  is  justified 
by  the  law,  but  this  is  in  the  sigbt  of  God ;  for  he  is  justified 
in  tbe  sigbt  of  tbe  world  so  as  to  be  safe  in  this  life.  But  if  he 
would  be  justified  before  God,  he  must  follow  the  faitb  of  God; 
otberwdse  thougb  he  be  safe  here,  he  wiU"  be  guilty  bereafter." 
You  underline  these  words  witb  tbe  remark  "  This  excellent 
explanation  is  nonsense." 


supported  by  St.  Ambrose  and  St.  Augustine.  183 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XVIII. 

Every  where  you  are  consistent,  and  eveiy  where  you  betray  s  T  R  i  c. 

the  same  arrogance.     Every  tliing  tliat  Las  been  said  by  any 1- 

author,  ever  so  ancient,  aud  in  other  respects  of  great 
authority  in  tbe  Churcli^  is  nonsense  and  trifling^  if  it  does 
not  exactly  correspond  with  yonr  own  trifling.  Yet,  most 
egregious  trifler^  tbis  saying  of  our  ancient  writer,  wbicb  I 
have  judged  most  excellent,  you  nonsense,  is  supported  by 
the  voice  of  nearly  all  tbe  ancients.  Tlius  writes  the  real 
St.  Ambrose ^  '"^The  law,  according  to  the  Apostle,  is  theinPs.  iis. 
schoolmaster  of  children,  tili  we  come  to  the  riper  age  of 
perfect  faith.  Now  in  the  law  there  are  commands,  judg- 
ments,  testimonies,  precepts  of  righteousness.  Whence  the 
Apostle  says,  '  the  law  is  not  of  faith,  but  the  man  who  doeth 
it  shall  live  in  it.'  But  as  he  says  above,  that '  no  one  is  justified 
by  the  law/  you  see  that  the  justification  of  the  law  is  a  type, 
and  an  image,  not  the  truth.  In  truth,  then,  no  one  is 
justified  by  the  law  unto  perfection ;  in  type  he  is  justified." 
Nav,  St.  Austin  himself  (who  seems  to  be  the  only  one  of  [vol.  üi. 

p.  953.1 

the  Fathers  you  value)  teaches  expressly  the  same  as  our 
author.     " '  The  law  is  not  of  faith,  but  the  man  that  doeth  tom.  iv. 
them  shall  Uve  in  them.'     He  says  not,  '  The  man  that  doeth  £p|st.  ad 
it'  shall  live  in  it :   that  you  may  understand  that  the  law  ^^^-  '^• 
Stands  here  for  the  works  themselves.     Now  they  who  lived 
in  these  works,  feared,  if  they  did  them  not,  that  they  should 
be  stoned  or  crucified,  or  otherwise  put  to  death.     Therefore 
he  says,  '  The  man  that  doeth  them  shall  live  in  them :'  i.  e. 
he  shall  have  his  reward,  in  not  being  punished  with  death." 
And  a  Kttle  after,  "  He  who  is  not  justified  at  all,  neither 
keeps  those  things  which  have  a  temporal  reward  annexed, 
nor  those  which  have  an  eternal  reward  annexed.     He  who  is 
justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  is  not  justified  in  the  sight 
of  God,  because  he  expects  thence  a  visible  and  temporal 
reward.     Yct  there  is  in  this,  as  I  said,  a  certain  (so  to  speak) 
earthly  and   carnal    righteousness.     For  the   Apostle   else- 
where  calls  it  righteousness,  when  he   says,  'Touching  the 
righteousness  of  the  laAV,  I  lived  blameless.'"     But  more  of 
this  prcscutly. 

'  Tom.  ii.  p.  Kit.  Colon.  Agiip.  IGlö.  [vol.  i.  p.  1)24—5.] 


184  True  justification 

STRICTURE    XIX. 

ON  II.  DISS.  viü.  §  15.  p.  94. 

STRic.      Here  the  first  argument  whicli  tlie  Apostle  uses  to  shew 

^^^-     that  justification  did  not  appertain  to  the  law  of  Moses, — the 

want,  -vdz.,  of  a  true  and  eternal  forgivenessj  which  that  law 

could  not  grant, — after  ha^äng  been  discussed  at  length  in  all 

its  parts,  is  summed  up  at  last  in  this  syllogism. 

"  At  the  judgment-seat  of  God,  no  man  can  be  justified  by 
the  law  of  Moses,  who  is  guilty  of  those  sins  for  which  no 
remission  is  proAdded  at  that  judgment-seat  by  that  law  : 

*^But  all,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  are  guilty  of  those  sins 
for  which  no  remission  is  provided  at  that  judgment-seat  by 
the  law  of  Moses  : 

"  Therefore  no  man,  Jew  or  Greek,  can  be  justified  by  the 
law  of  Moses,  at  the  judgment-seat  of  God."  Against  this, 
with  sufficient  self-conceit,  and  your  usual  vehemence,  you 
thus  inveigh,  "Away  with  your  syllogism,  the  monstrous 
product  of  your  OAvn  brain,  of  which  neither  the  major  premiss 
nor  the  minor  premiss,  nor  conclusion,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Apostle's  words.  I  repeat  tili  I  am  hoarse,  that  St.  PauFs 
conclusion  is,  that  no  one  is  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law, 
because  the  law  conAdcts  every  one  of  sin,  from  the  gnilt  of 
which  no  folloAving  works  of  obedience  deliver  any  man  :  but 
a  man  is  justified  by  faith  apart  from  works,  through  the  re- 
demption  of  Jesus  Christ.  Open  your  eyes,  and  see  the  differ- 
ence  between  St.  Paul's  conclusion  and  your  own  invention." 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XIX. 

§  1.  The  syllogism  which  you  call  the  monstrous  product 
of  my  brain,  the  ancients,  and  among  them  St.  Austin, 
attributed  to  St.  Paul,  as  I  have  just  shewn  by  clear  proofs. 
But  as  I  see  you  quite  despise  the  authority  of  the  ancients, 
whenever  it  opposes  your  preconceived  opinions,  I  will  put 
aside  this  weapon,  (which  Catholics  and  sober-minded  men 
alone  regard,)  and  will  endeavour  to  storm  your  obstinacy  by 
arguments  drawn  from  the  matter  itself.  These  arguments, 
however,  I  have  already  briefly  and  summarily  brought  for- 
ward  in  my  Dissertations :  and  consequently  they  can  only 
be  repeated  here,  with  fresh  light  thrown  upon  them,  and 
fortified  and  vindicated  from  your  attacks.     What  I  have  to 


not  attainable  by  the  law  of  Moses.  185 

prove  is  this^  that  the  Apostle,  when  he  says  that  no  sinner  s  T  R  l  c. 
can  be  justified  bv  the  law  of  Moses,  does  not  use  this  argu-  '  '  ' 
ment  for  it,  viz.  that  that  law  demands  as  a  condition  of 
justification  the  most  perfect  and  absolute  righteousness, 
such  as  no  man  can  perform,  even  through  the  grace  of  God 
given  in  the  Gospel;  but  rests  on  an  entirely  different 
ground :  \\z.  that  in  this  law  (under  the  view  in  which  it  is 
being  considered  by  him)  no  true  justification  at  all,  or  for- 
giveness  of  sins,  looking  beyond  this  life,  is  granted  on  any 
condition  whatsoever.  That  this  reasoning  is  entirely  the 
Apostle's  own  production,  not  a  pi'odigy  of  my  brain,  is 
proved  by  these  arguments. 

§  2.  In  the  first  place,  the  Apostle  plainly  and  avowedly 
uses  this  argument  in  bis  well-known  speech  to  the  Jews,  too 
often  quoted  bv  me :  "  Be  it  known  unto  vou  therefore,  men  Acts  13. 

*  38   39 

and  brethi'en,  that  through  this  man  is  preached  unto  you 
the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  and  by  Him,  all  that  beheve  are 
justified  from  all  things,  from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified 
by  the  law  of  Moses,"  "Where  I  have  obsened,  that  the 
Apostle  teaches  two  things;  viz.,  that  not  only  forgiveness 
(i.  e.  Spiritual,  which  the  law  did  not  grant  at  all)  of  sins  is 
announced  through  Jesus ;  but  also  that  in  Him  the  behever 
is  justified  from  all  things,  from  which  a  man  could  not 
be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses  (even  after  the  flesh) ;  aud 
hence  the  Apostle  infers,  that  justification  is  not  to  be  sought 
in  the  law  of  Moses,  but  that  we  must  fly  to  another  covenant 
of  fuUer  mercy,  viz.  the  covenant  estabhshed  in  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ,  &c. ;  both  of  which  inferences  are  thus  plainly 
gathered  from  this  passage.  For  when  the  Apostle  says  that 
every  one  who  believes  in  Christas  Gospel  is  through  Him 
justified  from  all  sins,  and  that  universal  forgiveness  of  such 
sins  cannot  be  obtained  by  the  law  of  Moses,  it  is  quite  piain 
that  the  Apostle  here  -views  the  law  of  Moses  in  a  carnal  and 
literal  sense,  as  opposed  to  the  Gospel.  And  it  is  certain 
that  the  law  of  Moses  viewed  in  this  light  not  only  granted 
not  remission  of  every  sin,  (inasmuch  as  it  punished  the  most 
grievous  sins,  idolatry,  murder,  adultery,  &c.,  with  death 
without  mercy  or  pardon,)  but  no  true  remission  of  any  sin 
whatever,  i.  e.  no  such  remission  as  appertaiued  to  the 
tribunal  of  God  aud  a  future  life.     That  this  interprctatiou 


186  St.  Paul  interpreted  from  Acts  xüi.  38,  39. 

s  T  R I  c.  of  mine  is  most  true,  you  yom*self  could  not  denj^ ;  but  I 

'- —  wish.  the  reader  to  observe,  how  you  meauwhile  evade  tbe 

force  of  my  argument.  You  write  thus  in  your  notes  on  this 
very  cbapter ;  "  St.  Paul  in  bis  speecb  to  tbe  Jews,  sbews 
tbem  bow  great  need  tbey  bad^  wbo  were  dinging  too  mucb 
to  tbe  sbell  of  tbe  \?m,  and  flattering  tbemselves  in  its 
sbadoWj  to  seek  rigbteousness  out  of  tbe  law^  and  take  refuge 
in  Christ  tbe  end  and  perfection  of  tbe  law;  and  on  tbe 
ground  tbat  tbe  law  prescribed  no  sacrifices  for  tbe  purging 
tbem  of  certain  sins,  tbe  penalty  of  wbicb  was  deatb,  be 
proves  tbat  tbe  people  liad  need  of  a  better  means  of  pro- 
pitiation,  if  tbey  would  not  perisb  in  tbeir  sins.  From  tbe 
ordinances  of  tbe  law  of  !Moses,  be  proves  tbe  need  of  Cbrist 
as  a  Sa^"iour.  Well.  But  in  tbe  Epistle  to  tbe  Romans  be  is 
aiming  at  sometbing  eise :  be  contends  tbat  no  one  is  justi- 
fied  by  works,  but  by  faitb  in  Cbrist.  Wbat  can  I  say  of 
bim  wbo  aflfirms  tbat  St.  Paul  is  urging  tbe  same  point  in 
botb  cases?  wbat  to  tbink,  I  know;  wbat  to  say,  I  know 
not.  I  cbeck  myself  for  moderation^s  sake."  I  answer : 
Wbat  you  eitber  tbink  or  say  of  me,  O  most  moderate  man, 
wbo  yet  are  by  no  means  sparing  of  ill  words  in  tbese  Stric- 
tures  of  yours,  I  eare  little ;  nor  (to  teil  you  tbe  trutb)  bave 
I  tbat  respect  for  your  judgment.  And  be  wbo  affii'ms  tbat 
St.  Paul  in  botb  cases  (botb  in  bis  speecb  to  tbe  Jews,  told 
by  St.  Luke,  Acts  xüi.,  and  in  bis  Epistles  to  tbe  Romans  and 
Galatians  also)  is  urg-ing  tbe  same  point,  does  not  say  so 
witbout  tbe  autbority  of  tbe  greatest  men,  nor  witbout  tbe 
plainest  reason.  For  firstly,  tbe  most  learned  Interpreters  are 
almost  agreed,  tbat  tbe  passage,  Acts  xüi.  38,  39,  is  tbe  littest 
key  to  tbe  meaning  of  all  St.  Paul's  argument  on  justification 
in  tbe  Epistles  to  tbe  Romans  and  tbe  Galatians.  Hence  not 
only  our  own  Hammond,  but  even  Calvin  concluded  from 
tbat  passage  (as  we  observed  above)  tbat  tbe  word  'justifica- 
tion' in  St.  Paul's  Epistles  was  taken  in  a  forensic  sense, 
and  signified  '  acquittal  from  sins,'  or  '  remission  of  sins.' 
Hence  tliey  hesitated  not  to  say  tbat  tbat  passage  comprised 
in  tbe  fewest  words  tbe  wbole  of  tbe  Gospel  announced  by 
St.  Paul,  and  asserted  against  tbe  Jews.  Next,  tbe  agree- 
ment  of  tbis  passage  witb  St.  Paul's  argument  in  bis  Epistles 
is  piain  enough,  wbether  you  regard  tlic  words  tbemselves  or 


Perfeciion  not  bij  tlie  law.  187 

the  scope  of  the  Apostle,     In  both  places  it  is  affinned  that  s  T  R  l  c. 
he  who  believes  is  justified,  or  that  a  man  is  justified  by         '  ' 


faith;  in  both  it  is  denied  that  any  one  is  justified  by  the 
law;  in  both  places  St.  Paul  is  opposing  the  same  adver- 
saries,  the  Jews  and  Judaizing  Christians :  in  both,  lastly, 
he  has  the  same  end  before  him ;  viz.  to  drive  the  Jews,  who 
did  not  yet  beHeve,  from  seeking  justification  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  and  excite  them  to  embrace  the  grace  of  the  Gospel; 
and  to  persuade  the  Judaizing  Christians  to  acquiesce  in  the 
grace  of  the  Gospel  received,  as  sufEcient  to  their  salvation 
without  the  addition  of  the  law  of  Moses.  AVhy  then  should 
we  not  hold  that  St.  Paul  is  urging  the  same  point  in  both 
cases,  and  using  the  same  arguments  ? 

§  3.  The  same  argument  also  (as  is  agreed  by  all  inter- 
preters  ancient  and  modern)  is  insisted  on  by  the  dinne 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  teaching  that  the 
sacrifices  enjoined  in  the  law  ''could  not  make  him  that  did  Heb.  9.  9. 
the  sendce  perfect  as  pertaining  to  the  consciencej"    i.  e. 
they  could  not  deliver  him  from  internal  and  eternal  guilt 
in  the  sight  of  God,  but  profited  only  to  "the  pm-ifyiug  of  ver.  13. 
the  flesh;"    i.  e.  so  that  the  outwaixl  man  should  be  freed 
from  pain  and  death  of  the  body.     And  to  this  also  is  to 
be  referred  what   the   inspired  writer  hath   elsewhere  said 
in  fuller  terms;  viz.,  that  they  could  expect  no  perfection  ch,  7.  ii. 
from  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  i.  e.  from  sacrifices  ofi'ered  by 
those  priests;  that  the  law  rendered  nothing  perfect;  that  ver.  19. 
the  law  could  not  make  the  comers  to  it,  i.  e.  those  who  eh.  lo.  i. 
observed  the  worship  prescribed  in  it,  perfect.     For  in  all 
these  passages  it   is  evident  that  füll  and  perfect  absolu- 
tion  from  all  sins  even  the  most  gricvous,  is  implied.     As 
I  reflect  on  these  things,  I  cannot  enough  wonder  at  the 
barefacedness  of  my  Censurer,  who  so  doggedly  denies  that 
St.  Paul  has   any  where  used  these  arguments  in  liis  dis- 
cussions  on  justification.     For  most  di^ines  think  that  the 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hcbrews  is  St.  Paul  himself ; 
while  they  who  think  othcrAvise,  all  confess  that  the  author 
of  the  Epistle  (whoever  he  was,  whether  St.  Luke,  Clement, 
or  Barnabas,  or  any  one  eise)  was  a  contemporary  and  iuti- 
mate  friend  of  St.  Paul,  and   so  best  kncw  his  mcaning. 
Lastly,  it  is  most  evident  that  that  author  aims  at  the  same 


188  This  proved  by  the  argument  in  Rom.  iv. 

STRIC.  object  which  St.  Paul  has  in  liis  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and 

'  : the  Galatians,  and  this  we  just  now  said  was  both  to  excite 

unbelieving  Jews  to  embrace  the  grace  of  the  Gospel,  as 
entirely  and  absolutely  necessary  for  them ;  and  more  espe- 
cially  to  persuade  the  Judaizing  Christians  to  acquiesce  in 
the  grace  of  the  Gospel  received,  as  sufficient  for  their  sah^a- 
tion.  But  what  is  more  improbable  than  that  St.  Paul  in 
his  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians,  arguing  against 
justification  by  the  law,  should  never  have  used  the  argu- 
ment which  is  nearly  the  only  one  put  forward  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  either  by  St.  Paul  himself,  or  at 
least  by  some  writer  intimately  allied  with  St.  Paul,  treating 
the  same  question  ? 

§  4.  But  to  put  the  matter  beyond  dispute,  I  will  bring 
some  passages  from  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  the 
Galatians,  and  these  from  the  very  heart  of  St.  Paul's  argu- 
ments,  which  most  plainly  rest  on  the  supposition  that  no 
true  justification,  joined  with  the  gift  of  eternal  life,  is  given 
or  promised  by  the  law  of  Moses.  In  the  fourth  chapter  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  ver.  13,14, 16,  the  Apostle  argues 
against  justification  by  the  law  thus :  "For  the  promise 
that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world  was  not  to  Abraham 
or  to  his  seed  through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteous- 
ness  of  faith.  For  if  they  who  are  of  the  law  be  heirs,  faitli 
is  made  void,  and  the  promise  made  of  none  effect. — There- 
fore  it  (the  inheritance)  is  of  faith,  that  it  might  be  by  grace, 
to  the  end  that  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  aU  the  seed : 
not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which 
is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  all." 
Here  the  Apostle  teaches  expressly,  that  the  promise  of  the 
inheritance,  viz.  of  heaven,  was  not  made  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed  through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of 
faith :  and  that  on  this  account,  because,  if  that  inheritance 
had  depended  on  the  law,  the  promise  made  to  Abraham, 
long  before  the  law  of  Moses,  Avould  have  been  vain.    By  this 

iirayyiKia  argument  also  he  proves  that  'the  promise'  was  not  made 
through  the  law,  but  through  faith,  or  the  Gospel;  (which, 
before  the  law,  was  preached  to  Abraham,  and  remained  valid 
under  the  law,  and  was  shadowed  out  even  in  the  law  itself :) 
because  otherwise  that  promise  would  not  have  been  firm  to 


and  more  fully  in  Gal.  m.  is.  189 

the  wliole  seed  of  Abraham,  Jews  as  well  as  Gentiles,  but  to  s  T  R I  c. 

XIX 
the  Jews  only;  for  to  them  alone  was  the  law  of  Moses 


given.  Whence  it  is  most  evident  that  the  Apostle  argued  not 
of  any  covenant  or  law  of  works  (as  it  is  called)  which  per- 
tained  to  all  the  sons  of  Adam,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  and  which 
bound  them  to  some  most  absolute  and  so  impossible  righte- 
Gusness  under  the  promise  of  eternal  life,  and  threatening  of 
eternal  death,  (as  you  and  most  of  the  modern  di^^nes  have 
dreamed,)  but  only  of  the  law  of  Moses,  as  far  as  it  was  given 
to  the  Jews  only ;  and  that  he  denied  to  this  law  not  justifi- 
cation  of  any  kind,  but  füll  and  perfect  justification  only,  i.  e. 
justification  accompanied  with  the  gift  of  eternal  life ;  q.  e.  d. 
§  5.  But  the  same  Apostle  explains  this  more  at  length  and 
more  clearly  too  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians,  where  in  ver.  18  he  teaches  that  the  inheritance, 
viz.  of  eternal  life  and  heavenly  happiness,  by  no  means  comes 
of  the  law,  but  of  the  old  promise  concerning  Christ,  made  to 
Abraham  before  the  law,  i.  e.  of  the  Gospel :  so  that  the  sense 
is  piain,  that  the  law  of  Moses,  viewed  literally,  was  never  set 
forth  by  God  as  the  law  or  covenant  of  eternal  life.  Which  the 
Apostle  ha^dng  said,  proceeds  to  meet  the  objection  ver.  19, 
"  Wherefore  then  serveth  the  law?"  i.  e.  if  it  were  not  given  as 
a  covenant  of  life  and  eternal  salvation,  to  what  end  was  it?  He 
answers,  "  it  was  added  because  of  transgressions ;"  i.  e.  it  was 
added  to  the  promise  on  account  of  the  transgressions,  viz., 
of  the  Jewish  people  to  whom  it  was  given :  i.  e.  because  the 
posterity  of  Abraham,  recently  brought  out  of  Egypt,  (where 
they  had  associated  with  impious  men  and  idolaters,)  and 
thence  vehemently  addicted  not  only  to  the  vices,  but  also  to 
the  rites  and  superstitions  of  the  heathen,  they  needed  such 
a  law  to  keep  them  in  their  duty,  but  most  especially  to  pre- 
serve  them  from  the  idolatrous  worship  of  the  heathen.  This 
is  the  piain  meaning  of  the  Apostle ;  nor  are  all  the  theories 
of  most  modern  divines  any  thing  to  the  pm'pose.  Conse- 
quently  we  find  this  end  of  the  giving  of  the  law  of  Moses  is 
acknowledged  by  the  most  ancient  Christian  writers,  who 
flourished  in  the  first  generation  after  the  Apostles,  and  had 
therefore  derived  their  divinity  from  the  immediate  disciples  Dial.  cum 
of  the  Apostles.  Thus  Justin  Martyr  :  "For  the  sins  of^'y^gV 
your  people,  and  your  idolatries,  not  because  He  was  in  need  •22.p.i2o.] 


190  lohich  IS  confirmed  by  most  ofthe  ancients. 


lib.  iv. 
advers. 
Haeres. 
cap.  29. 
[c.  15.  p 
245.] 


lib.  ü. 
advers. 
Marcion, 
[c.  18. 
p.  391.] 


s TR I c.  of  such  ofFerings,  did  He  ordain  these  things."     And  again 
'-^  in  the  same  Dialogue :  "  For  the  hardness  of  tlie  heart  of 

p.  265.  [c.  1     T  1    ■       j 

46.  p.  142.]  vour  people  ye  perceive  tliat  God  tlirougli  Kloses  ordamed 
these  things  unto  von,  that  by  means  of  these  many  ordi- 
nances  ye  might  in  every  action  ever  have  your  God  before 
your  eyes;  and  not  begin  to  act  injurionsly  or  impiously.^' 
In  Hke  manner  Irenseus  :  "  If  therefore  even  in  the  New 
Testament  we  find  the  Apostles  gi^^ng  some  precepts  in  the 
way  of  allowance,  we  niust  not  wonder_,  if  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment also  God  would  have  the  same  thing  done  for  the 
benefit  of  the  people,  allm-ing  them  by  the  fore-mentioned 
observances,  that  through  them  at  least  they  might  observe 
the  Decaloguej  and  so  be  kept  from  retuming  to  idolatry  and 
apostatizing  from  God.^^  That  Tertullian  followed  these  I 
have  aheady  shewn  in  the  Harmony,  adducing  a  well-known 
passage  of  his^  which  I  think  may  here  be  repeated.  "  Let 
no  one  munnur  against  the  burdens  of  sacrifices  and  the 
scmpulousnesses  of  Performances  and  offerings,  as  though 
God  really  desü-ed  such  things;  wliereas  He  plainly  cries 
aloud,  '  To  "svhat  purpose  are  the  multitude  of  your  sacri- 
fices?' and  'Who  hath  required  this  at  your  hands?'  but 
let  him  consider  this  a  provision  of  God,  uhereby  He  would 
bind  to  His  service  a  people  prone  to  idolati-y  and  such  kind 
of  transgression,  by  duties  which  were  used  in  the  supersti- 
tion^»^  of  the  age  from  which  He  would  call  them  away, 
ordering  them  to  be  done  to  Him,  as  though  He  desired 
them,  that  they  might  not  faU  away  to  idolatry."  To  which 
also  has  reference  "ohat  Justin,  Irenseus,  and  others  of  the 
ancients  observed,  viz.  that  the  ritual  law  was  not  given  to 
the  people  of  Israel  before  they  had  poUuted  themselves 
with  the  worship  of  the  golden  calf,  and  had  so  given  a  fair 
specimen  of  their  disposition,  and  how  much  need  they  had 
of  the  fence  of  the  law  to  prevent  them  from  bm*sting  forth 
again  and  again  into  idolatry,  and  at  length  dropping  wholly 
from  the  service  of  the  one  true  God.     Thus  Justin  in  the 

p.236,2.37.  above-mentioned  Dialoguc :  "  For,  without  the  observance  of 

r  >  1  o 

119.]        the  sabbath,  all  those  before-namcd  rightcous  men  pleased 


""  On  this  account  the  Mosaic  rites  are 
called  "the  Clements"  or  "  nidiments 
of  the  World,"  to  tnoixf'ta.  tov  KÖrrfiov, 


Gal.  iv.  3,  Col.  ii.  8,  20,  because  they 
were  common  to  the  Jews  and  the 
World. 


How  the  law  was  given.  191 

God,  and  after  them  Abraham   and   all  bis   sons^  even  toSTRIC. 

Moses,   in  wliose  time  yoiir  people  making  a  calf  in   the  — '— 

wildemess  shewed  themselves  imrighteous  and  imgrateful 
towards  God.  Wherefore  God  suiting  Himself  to  that 
people,  ordered  them  to  perform  sacrifices,  as  to  His  name, 
that  ye  might  not  be  idolaters/^  The  same  also  saith 
Irenseus" :  "  For  God  at  first,  indced,  admonishing  them  by 
the  natural  precepts,  which  from  the  beginning  He  had  im- 
planted  in  men,  i.  e.  by  the  Decalogue,  (without  the  fulfil- 
ment  of  which  no  man  can  be  saved,)  reqviired  nothing  more 
from  them ;  as  Moses  saith  in  Deuteronomy,  '  These  are  all 
the  "vvords  which  the  Lord  spake  to  all  the  assembly  of  the 
sons  of  Israel  in  the  mount,  and  He  added  nothing :  and  He 
wrote  them  on  tvro  tables  of  stone  and  gave  them  me,^  for 
this  reason,  that  they  who  wished  to  follow  Him  should  keep 
His  precepts.  But  when  they  turned  themselves  to  the 
making  of  a  calf,  and  in  their  hearts  turned  back  into 
Egypt,  desiring  to  be  slaves  instead  of  free  men,  they  re- 
ceived  for  the  future  a  ser^itude  fitted  to  their  desire,  not 
cutting  them  off  indeed  from  God,  but  ruling  them  T\dth  the 
yoke  of  slavery,^^  &c.  And  this  Observation  is  in  matter  of 
fact  most  tme;  for  Moses,  before  he  ascended  into  the 
mount,  (about  to  tarry  there  for  forty  days,)  had  given  to 
the  people  only  the  Decalogue,  and  some  political  laws,  which 
are  called  ^  judgments,'  as  we  may  see  Exod.  xxiv.  3,  compared 
with  ver.  9.°  And  before  Moses  had  come  down  from  the 
mount,  the  Israelites  had  made  a  calf :  and  we  may  easily  be- 
lieve  holy  men  taught  by  the  disciples  of  the  Apostles,  when 
they  say  that  there  was  a  hidden  mystery  in  all  that  was  done. 
§  6.  But  let  US  now  proceed  with  our  Apostle :  who  after 
having  shewn  the  end  for  which  the  law  of  Moses  was  given, 
goes  on  in  the  same  place  to  declai*e  the  mode  of  legislation, 
exactly  con'esponding  to  that  end :  "  The  law,"  saith  he,  "  was 
ordained  by  angels;"  i.  e.  by  one  angel — with  whom  'the 
Word,'  6  \0709,  was  present — pronouncing  it  in  God's  name, 
and  striking  terror  into  the  people  with  earthquake,  storm, 
thunder,  lightning,  in  the  midst  of  attendant  hosts,  (cf,  Acts 

"  Lib.  iv.  advers.  Haeres.  in  fine  cap.       22-5,  226,  edit.  Noriinberg.    1.524.   [p. 
28.  et  initio  29.  [c.  15.  p.  214.]  1ÜG3.  ed.  Iß02.] 

"  Vid.  Rupert.  Tiiit.  in  Malach.  p. 


193  The  end  of  the  law  corresponds 

STRic.  vii.  38  witli  Deut,  xxxiii.  2,  Heb.  ii.  2^)  and  that  'in  the 

"V'T'V' 

1-1-  hands'  of  a  'mediator/  \\z.  Moses,  who  interposed  between 

God  and  the  people.  St.  Paul  adds,  ver.  20,  "But  a  mediator 
is  not  a  mediator  of  one ;"  where  Grotius  excellently  admo- 
nishes  "  evo?  must  be  from  neuter  ev,  so  that  the  meaning  is, 
'  a  mediator  does  not  interpose  betAveen  those  who  are  at 
one,  i.  e.  who  agree  well  together ;'  but  God  is  one,  i.  e.  ever 
like  Himself;  He  changes  not  except  when  man  changes. 
Wherefore  unless  many  and  grievous  sins  had  intervened, 
God  would  have  shewn  Himself  as  propitious  and  friendly 
to  the  Israelites  as  He  had  shewn  Himself  of  old  to  their 
ancestors;  nor  at  that  time  more  than  before  would  there 
have  been  need  of  a  mediator  to  interpose."  In  the  same 
way  hath  James  Capel  explained  this  passage,  observing 
hereupon,  "  But  a  mediator  is  not  mediator  of  one  party, 
but  of  two,  and  those  disagreeing;  when,  therefore,  Moses 
was  a  mediator  between  God  and  the  people,  he  hereby 
witnesses  that  there  was  disagreement  between  these  two 
parties.  '  But  God  is  one,'  always  the  same,  ever  consistent. 
The  disagreement  therefore  is  not  of  God,  but  must  be 
counted  to  the  changeableness  of  mau."  And  indeed  this 
iuterpretation  is  piain  and  easy,  and  agrees  with  the  object  of 
the  Apostle  :  while  all  the  other  interpretations  are  hard  aud 
forced,  doing  violence  to  the  sense,  and  quite  foreign  to  bis 
purpose,  as  will  appear  immediately  to  any  one  who  com- 
pares  them.  The  Apostle  goes  on,  ver.  21,  meeting  a  new 
objection  in  these  words :  "  Is  the  law  therefore  against  the 
promises  of  God  ?"  The  question  arises  out  of  the  preceding 
answer  in  this  way :  If  the  law  were  made  by  God  on 
account  of  the  transgressions  of  the  Israelites,  He  being 
angry  with  them  for  their  sins,  shall  we  then  confess  that 
the  law  is  opposed  to  the  promise  of  God,  made  to  that 
people,  as  the  seed  of  Abraham  :  i.  e.  that  God,  offcnded,  had 
changed  His  good  purpose,  and  by  making  a  law  had  cut  off 
those  gracious  promises  ?  First  the  Apostle  casts  away  the 
objection  as  an  abomination ;  "  God  forbid  V  says  he :  then 
he  adds  an  ansAver  in  these  words  :  "  If  there  had  been  a  law 
which  could  have  given  life,  verily  righteousness  or  justifica- 
tion  shoukl  have  been  by  the  law."  Tlie  answer  is  phiinly 
elliptical,  and  must  be  fillcd  up  in  the  following  way ;  "  aud 


with  the  way  in  tvhich  it  was  given.  193 

then  there  would   have  been  really  a  law  contrary  to  tlie  s  T  R  l  C 
promise ;"   (such  as  would  have  set  forth  a  way  of  obtaining ^- 


life  or  justificatiou,  far  other  thau  that  which  had  been  rati- 
fied  by  promise  3)   "  but  it  is  quite  otherwise  :  the  law  cannot 
give  life,  and  therefore  not  true  justification."     Where  it  is 
piain  that^  "  if  there  had  been  a  law  given  which  could  have 
given  hfe/'  is  the  same  as  "  if  the  inheritance  be  of  the  law/^ 
above,  ver.  18.     Consequently  'to  give  life'  is  to  give  an  'in-  C<^o-KOi9,- 
heritance^  of  heavenly  and  eternal  life.     But  the  law  is  said  '^'"' 
to  'do^  or  'give'  what  it  promises,  so  that  the  raeaning  is,  jui'o. 
"  If  the  law  had  promised  an  inheritance  of  heavenly  and 
eternal  life.^'     In  the  following  words,  "  verily  righteousness 
should  have  been  by  the  law,"  the  great  emphasis  of  the  word 
6W&)9,  '  verily,^  must  be  remarked.    For  the  Apostle  concedes 
(which  is  what  we  are  maintaining)  to  the  law  its  own  "  justifi-  SiKoiwo-is 
cation,'  viz.  that  which  brings  with  it  temporal  freedom  from 
punishment,  and   consequently  happiness,   but  he  expressly 
denies  6vTa><i  e'/c  vöfjiov  elvac  hiKaiocrvvrjv,  that  true  justification 
(i.  e.  aecompanied  with  the  gift   of  a  heavenly  inheritance) 
can  be  obtained  through  the  law.     The  Apostle  subjoius,  ver. 
22,  "  But  the  Scripture  hath  concluded  all  under  sin,"  or  in- 
volved  them  in  sin;  i.  e.  hath  declared  them  concluded  or 
involved.     A  man  is  said  to  be  'concluded  under  sin'  or 
involved  in  sins,  who  is  still  bound  by  the  guilt  of  sin ;  thus 
all  were  concluded  under  sin  in  the  sight  of  God  before 
Christ  came,  if  you  regard  the  law  of  Moses  in  itself :  since 
it  gave  no  true  justification  aecompanied  with  the  gift  of  a 
heavenly  lifo  or  inheritance,  (as  the  Apostle  has  just  said). 
This  benefit  flowed  from  the  promise   given  to  those  who  vor.  22. 
believe  in  Jesus  Christ.     And  that  promise  made  more  ob- 
scurely  before  the  law,  and  veiled  under  the  lav/,  was  revealed 
at  length  most  openly  in  the  Gospel,  ver.  23.    The  sum  of  all 
is :  The  holy  men  eveu  "under  the  law"  were  truly  justified, 
yet  not  "  by  the  law,"  but  "  by  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  Acts  xv.  11.     He  who  does  not  see  clearh'  from  all 
these  things  that  the  Apostle  is  arguing  against  justification 
by  the  law,  on  the  ground  that  in  that  law  there  is  no  true 
justification  at  all,  or  reraission  of  sins,  looking  beyond  tliis 
life,  must  be  either  plainly  rid  of  his  senses,  or  clogged  Avith 
an  incm-able  prejudice. 

BUl.L.  Q 


194  The  law  of  Moses 

S  T  R I C.       §  7.  But   let  US   liear   what   our  Censurer   has   to  briug 

: —  agaiust  so  clear  an  explanation  of  tliis  passage.    "  You  affix," 

says  he,  "^  stränge  meaning  to  the  Apostle's  words,  wliich 
they  do  not  naturaUy  bear.  The  law,  as  far  as  it  regards 
the  covenant  of  works,  could  not  give  hfe,  because  no  one  has 
fulfilled  the  condition  of  the  covenant."  Triüy  this  meaning 
of  our  Aristarchus  is  so  far  fi'om  spontaneously  flowing  from 
the  very  words  of  the  Apostle,  that  it  does  them  most  open 
^dolence;  moreover  it  is  diametrically  opposed  not  only  to 
the  Apostle^s  words  but  also  to  the  aim  and  purpose  (whieh  is 
piain  enough)  of  the  whole  context.  For  first,  the  phrase  (as 
we  have  remarked)  to  '  give  an  inhentance^  or  'bfe/  as  far  as 
it  is  suited  to  the  law,  cannot  mean  any  thiug  eise  than  to 
promise  inheritance  or  life;  wheu  then  the  Apostle  denies 
that  the  law  of  Moses  can  give  life,  he  means  that  life  is  not 
promised  in  that  laAV.  Next,  what  is  more  forced  than  this 
interpretation  ?  the  law  was  not  able  to  give  Hfe  to  men,  i.  e. 
the  law  was  able  to  give  life  to  men,  but  mankind  itself  was 
not  able  to  receive  it.  Besides,  the  Apostle  is  speaking  ex- 
pressly  of  the  law  as  far  as  it  was  giveu  by  God,  not  as  far  as 
it  was  fulfilled  or  not  fulfilled  by  man :  "  if  there  had  been  a 
law  given  which  could  have  made  ahve,  or  given  life."  Nay, 
says  our  Censiu'er,  a  law  was  indeed  given  by  God,  which  if 
fidfilled  could  have  given  life.  Is  not  this  flat  contradiction 
to  the  Apostle  ?  Lastly,  as  regards  the  drift  of  the  passage, 
the  Apostle  is  proving  that  the  law  is  not  contrary  to  the 
promise,  on  the  very  ground  that  this  law  was  not  put  forth 
or  made  by  God  as  a  law  or  covenant  of  hfe  and  eternal  sal- 
vation ;  consequently  by  bringing  in  a  law,  God  by  no  means 
appointed  any  other  or  difi'erent  way  of  obtaining  salvation 
from  that  which  he  had  before  sanctioned  in  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham,  i.  e.  in  the  Gospel.  The  Apostle  therefore 
is  plainly  speaking  of  the  very  nature  or  Constitution  of  the 
law,  not  of  its  effect,  which  depended  on  man. 

§  8.  My  Censurer  confideutly  affirms  that  the  law  of 
which  the  Apostle  is  speaking  in  this  passage,  means  the 
'  covenant  of  works.'  Now  if  *  covenant  of  works'  be  under- 
stood  in  the  common  sense  of  the  phrase,  (as  it  is  evident  it 
is  understood  by  him,)  he  could  not  well  have  affirmed  any 
thing  more  absurd.     Divines  commonly  call  'the  covenant 


not  a  laiü  of  absolute  perfection.  195 

of  worlvs'  tliat  primeval  or  original  law  which  was  first  made  S  T  R I  C. 
for  mankind  in  tlieir  state  of  integritj^,  and  wliich  required     '    '  " — 


of  them  most  perfect  and  most  absolute  virtue,  or  conformity 
to  the  eternal  law^  wliich  could  be  performed  by  tlie  perfect 
poTvers  of  human  nature  unblemislied^  and  aided  by  super- 
natural gifts,  witb  a  promise  of  immortality  if  they  fulfiUed 
tliat  law,  but  witb  a  threatening  of  eternal  deatb  if  they 
declined  in  the  least  degree  from  it.  They  teach  tliat  this 
law  continued  even  after  the  fall,  and  will  remain  so  even  to 
the  end  of  the  world  :  and  that  it  binds  all  and  every  son  of 
Adam,  until  they  are  freed  from  the  bond  of  that  Obligation 
by  faith  in  Christ  our  Redeemer.  On  this  question  I  bave 
stated  my  opinion,  or  rather  the  Catholic  doctrine  aboA'e,  at 
some  lengtli.  But  that  the  Apostle  in  this  chapter  of  his 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians  is  not  at  all  speaking  of  svicb  a  law 
or  covenant,  will  be  most  piain  from  these  considerations. 
In  the  first  place,  the  Apostle  is  speaking  of  the  law  which 
was  given  to  the  Jews  alone  from  Mount  Sinai  by  Angels, 
Moses  being  the  mediator,  ver.  19,  not  therefore  of  a  law  which 
should  bind  the  whole  human  race.  Next,  he  is  speaking 
expressly  of  a  temporary  law,  which  as  it  was  not  given  tili 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  the  promise  was  made  to 
Abraham,  so  was  it  not  to  have  longer  duration  than  tili  the 
Coming  of  the  'promised  seed,^  i.  e.  Christ;  ver.  17,  19,  25; 
he  was  not  therefore  thinking  of  a  perpetual  law,  coeval  with 
mankind,  and  meant  to  endure  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
Lastly,  the  Apostle  is  speaking  most  plainly  in  this  chapter 
of  a  less  perfect  law,  which  God  in  His  infinite  wisdom  gave 
and  suited  like  a  schoolmaster  to  the  Jews,  as  boys  and  minors, 
ver.  23,  24,  25,  compared  with  eh.  iv.  ver.  1,  2,  3.  Therefore 
it  is  certain  that  he  is  speaking  not  of  a  law  requiring  most 
absolute  virtue,  such  as  we  have  described.  In  good  sooth, 
a  law  which.  would  be  satisfied  with  nothing  short  of  the 
righteousness  of  Paradise,  would  have  admirably  suited  an 
ignorant  and  carnal  people,  just  emerged  from  the  ignorance 
of  Egypt. 

§  9.  But,  you  will  say,  does  not  the  New  Testament  every 
where  cry  out  as  to  the  great  severity  and  rigour  of  the  law 
of  Moses  in  exacting  obedience?    is  not  that  law  here  called 

expressiv  'a  voke  which  could  not  beborne?'  Ccrtainly.  But  Acts  15. 

.,  o  '  10. 


1P6  Wherein  its  strictness  consisted. 

s  T  R I  c.  it  is  evident  that  in  these  places  the  raoral  law  is  most  espe- 

XIX         .  ... 
'■ —  cially  regarded,  whicli  enjoined  Aery  many^  and  tliose  most 

grievous  precepts  on  the  Jews,  so  scinipulously  to  he  observod 

that  the  \dolation  of  even  the  least  of  them  required  an 

atonement.     Certainly  it  is  evident  that  the  law  was  more 

indulgent  to  the    Jews    in    exaeting   morality.     Whence  it 

allowed  polygamy,    and   liberty  of  divorcement,    for   other 

causes  than  for  adultery;  nor  does  it  seera  to  have  Leen  sin 

in  any  one  to  have  made  use  of  this  right,  provided  hc  did 

not  exceed  the  bonnds  of  moderation.     As  to  polygamy,  it  is 

piain;  unless  indeed  we  must  believe  (not  to  mention  other 

arguraents)  that  the  most  holy  and  the  wisest  men  under  the 

law  were  eitlier  ntterly  ignorant  of  God's  will  in  a  matter  of 

so  great  moment,  or  eise  lived  in  sin  against  their  consciences 

for  many  years,  and  even  went  on  until  death  without  re- 

pentance.    In  this  as  in  other  matters,  hoAvever,  so  nnanimous 

and  nndeAdating  is  the  opinion  of  Catholic  doctors  that  the  law 

of  Christ  was  'an  extension  of  and  addition  to  the  precepts'  (of 

Moses),  eTTLracriv  kol  irpoaörjKrjv  evToXoiv,  as  says  St.  Chrysos- 

tom,  that  it  would  be  the  height  of  ignorance  or  irreverence 

to  question  it.     Herein  then  was  seen  the  rigour  and  severity 

of  the  law  of  Moses,  in  that  it  required  so  strictly  the  observ- 

ance  of  so  many  and  so  grievous  ceremonies.     Truly  by  that 

'  yoke  which  could  not  be  borne,'  of  which  mention  is  made 

in  the  passage  quoted,  Acts  xv.  10,  it  is  piain  that  the  ritual 

law  of  Moses  is  meant,  because  it  was  only  about  circumcision, 

and  the  other  ceremonies  of  the  Mosaic  law,  being  put  upon 

the  Gentiles,  who  had  eml)raced  the  faitli  of  Christ,  that 

there  was  any  question  in  the  Council  held  at  Jerusalem. 

In  the  same  sense  the  well-known  passage  Rom.  iv.  15,  seems 

to  me  to  speak.     "For  the  law  worketli  wrath;    for  where 

there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  transgression.'^     For  although  it 

is  most  true  that  the  law  of  nature  was  in  many  things 

elucidated  by  the  law  of  Moses,  and  therefore  after  that  law 

was  given,  many  sins  committed  against  morality  were  seen 

more   palpably,  and  thence  deserved    scverer   punishment ; 

yet  it  would  seem  that  the  Apostle  hcre  had  especial  refcr- 

ence  to  those  numberless  merely  positive  precepts  of  the 

Mosaic  law  about  rites  and  ceremonies,    which  were  most 

rigorously  imposcd  on  the  Jews.     For  of  these  only  is  that 


The  laiü  spoken  of  in  two  ivays.  197 

declaration  of  the  Apostle  exactly  true,  "where  uo  law  is,  STRIC. 
there  is  uo  transgression/'     Most  esi^ecially  was  this  exact- 


uess  of  the  ritual  law  of  jSIoses  siiited  to  the  childish  state  of 
the  Jews.  For  the  childishiiess  of  the  Jews  was  seen  in  that 
they  were  wantou^  wilful^  aud  prone  to  idolatrous  rites^  to 
which  they  had  been  accustomed  in  Egypt;  consequently 
those  '  troublesome  scrupulousnesses'  of  manifold  ceremonies 
(as  TertulUan  speaks)  were  obliged  to  be  rigidly  imposed  on 
them,  that  by  being  oecupied  and  kept  in  them^  they  might 
be  drawn  away  from  idolatry,  which  cousisted  chiefly  in  such 
kiud  of  rites. 

§  10.  I  think  I  have  now  abundantly  proved  that  the 
Apostle^s  argument,  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and 
Galatians,  agaiust  justificatiou  by  the  law  of  Moses,  is  by  no 
means  fouuded  ou  the  suppositiou  that  that  law  required 
the  most  absolute  and  even  impossible  virtue  as  the  condition 
of  justificatiou,  but  rests  on  a  totally  opposite  foundation, 
viz.  that  in  the  law  of  Moses,  viewed  literally,  there  is  set 
forth  no  true  justificatiou  or  forgiveness  of  sins,  pointing 
beyond  this  life.  It  remains  to  answer,  a  by-no-meaus  con- 
temptible  objectiou,  adduced  by  you  elsewhere.  The  objec- 
tion  is  this :  It  is  e\'ident  from  many  passages  of  St.  Paul, 
especially  in  liis  Epistle  to  the  Romaus,  that  the  Mosaic  law 
is  often  takeu  by  him  in  a  spiiitual  seuse,  inasmuch  as  it 
both  prescribed  spiritual  righteousuess,  aud  promised  true 
justificatiou  accompauied  with  the  gift  of  eterual  life.  Thus 
the  law  is  called  by  St.  Paul  "  spiritual,  holy  aud  good," 
Rom.  vii.  12,  14;  aud  "the  commaudment  unto  life,^^  ver.  10. 
The  Apostle  also  says  that  "  the  law  is  established  by  faith," 
Rom.  iii.  last  verse,  which  tliings  caunot  be  said  of  the  law 
takeu  hterally  aud  in  a  carual  sense,  &c.  I  auswer  in  the 
words  of  Dionysius  the  celebrated  Bisliop  of  Alexandna,  Äthan. vol. 
quoted  by  Athanasius  :  "  The  blessed  Apostle  in  his  Epistle  parjsio^i?. 
to  the  Romans  said,  'the  law  is  spiritual:^  and  *the  law  is  [De  Syn. 
holy^  and  'the  commaudment  holy,  aud  just  and  good  :'  and  .^/y^gV' 
a  little  after,  '  for  that  which  was  impossible  to  the  law,  in 
that  it  was  yveak :'  while  to  the  llebrews  he  wrote,  'the  law 
hath  made  no  man  perfect:'  also  to  the  Galaliaus,  'by  the 
law  is  uo  man  justifiod,'  To  Timothy  he  said  that  '  the  law 
is   good,'  if  *auy   one   usc  it    lawfully.'     And   let   uo   oue 


198  True  justification  not  held  out 

S  T  R I C.  cliarge  the  Apostle  witli  writing  contraries  aud  contra- 
— - — — —  dictories,  but  rather  admire  the  way  in  wliich  lie  adapts 
himself  to  tlie  wants  of  all  whom  he  addresses :  that  the 
Romans  and  others  might  learn  to  turn  from  the  letter  to 
the  Spirit;  and  that  the  Hebrews  and  Galatians  might  be 
instructed  not  to  hope  in  the  law,  but  in  the  Lord,  who  gave 
the  law/^  From  this  testimony  it  is  evident  that  the 
ancients  thought,  Ist,  that  the  expression  6  v6/j,o<;,  ^the  law/ 
was  used  by  St.  Paul  in  different  senses.  2ndly,  that  the  law 
is  taken  in  two  ways  in  St.  Paulis  Epistles,  according  to  the 
letter,  aud  according  to  the  sphit ;  i.  e.  as  far  as  it  was  the 
Gospel  lyiug  hid  under  the  old  figures,  and  veiled  with  cere- 
monies,  explained  to  a  certain  exteut  and  suitably  to  the 
time  by  Moses  himself  (especially  in  Deuteronomy) ;  displayed 
more  clearly  by  succeeding  prophets  (as  seemed  good  to 
Divine  Wisdom) ;  lastly,  set  forth  most  fully  and  in  the  clearest 
light  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles  :  (that  third  view  of  the  law, 
in  which  it  marks  a  covenant  of  works,  as  distinct  from  the 
Gospel,  such  as  I  have  described  above,  was  wholly  unknown 
to  the  Pathers :  it  was  reserved  for  their  too  shai'p-sighted 
posterity  to  see  the  phantom).  3rdly,  all  those  elogiums 
which  are  attributed  to  the  law,  ^dz.  that  it  is  'spiritual, 
holy,'  &c.,  belong  to  it  so  far  as  it  is  viewed  spiritually,  or  in 
relation  to  the  Gospel.  4thly,  as  often  as  St.  Paul  denies 
justification  to  the  law,  the  law  is  understood  literally.  For 
Dionysius  adduces  those  passages,  "  by  the  law  is  no  man 
justified,"  and  "that  which  was  impossible  to  the  law  in  that 
it  was  weak,"  and  "the  law  hath  made  no  man  perfect,"  as 
parallel  passages.  Sthly,  that  the  Apostle  speaks  equi- 
vocally :  i.  e.  speaks  of  the  law,  at  one  time  as  spiritual,  at 
another  as  carnal  and  literal,  in  accordance  with  the  sense 
of  those  to  whom  and  for  whose  sake  he  wrote  the  Epistles ; 
and  this  indeed  is  most  true.  For  St.  Paul  sometimes  takes 
the  law  spiritually,  especially  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
that  the  Jews  and  Judaizing  Christians,  h^dng  at  Rome, 
might  kam  to  turn  from  the  letter  to  the  spirit.  For 
although  the  Jews  geuerally  acquiesced  in  that  outwai'd 
righteousness  which  was  prescribed  by  the  letter  of  the  law, 
yet  thcy  were  thus  blind  on  purpose :  since  Moses  first,  (as  we 
just  now  Said,)  theu  the  prophets  more  clearly,  shewed  them 


in  the  lato  of  Moses.  199 

the  Spiritual  righteousness,  whicli  would  alone  avail  to  salva-  STRI  C. 
tion;    aud  so  the  Apostle  with  justice  coudemus  tliem  as 


guilty  of  mortal  sin  in  God's  sight,  for  being  proud  of  tlie 
externa!  righteousuess  of  the  law  :  when  meanwhile  they 
utterly  neglected  the  spiritual  righteousuess,  veiled  iudeed 
in  the  law,  but  from  other  sources  sufficiently  revealed  to 
them.  But  when  the  Apostle  denies  justification  to  the  law, 
the  law  is  understood  literally,  and  that  again  suitably.  For 
here  was  a  principal  and  capital  error  of  the  Jews ;  that  they 
sought  true  justification  accompanied  with  the  gift  of  eternal 
life,  or  remission,  in  the  letter  of  the  law,  i.  e.  in  the  cere- 
raonies  and  sacrifices  prescribed  by  the  law :  nay,  those  of  the 
Jews  who  were  not  Ignorant  of  the  spiritual  righteousuess 
shadowed  forth  in  the  law,  either  thought  (as  has  been  eise-  Harm.  II. 

Diss  xvi- 

where  observed  by  me)  that  those  spiritual  precepts  were  5  p.'sog. 
counsels  rather  than  precepts,  or  certainly  they  thought  that 
the  transgressions  of  such  kind  of  precepts  were  so  pui'ged, 
partly  by  daily  victims,  partly  by  the  holy  annual  atonement, 
that  no  remembrance  of  them  was  retained  with  God.  By 
many  arguments  therefore,  (and  that  to  some  pui'pose,)  the 
Apostle  shews  that  uo  one  by  that  ritual  law  is  justified  'in 
the  sight  of  God  •'  that  '  verily  righteousuess  is  not  by  the 
law,^  or  that  there  is  no  true  justification  for  any  one  by  the 
law :  that  those  external  sacrifices  were  of  themselves  a 
miserable  refuge  for  sinners,  inasmuch  as  they  profited  only 
to  'the  purifyiug  of  the  flesh,'  that  is,  that  the  outward  man 
might  be  delivered  from  the  pain  and  death  of  the  body.  Heb.  9.  \z. 

STRICTURE  XX. 

ON  II.  DISS.  ix.  &c. 

In  this  chapter  and  the  follo^ang,  I  explain  the  second 
argument  of  the  Apostle,  by  which  he  denies  justification  to 
the  jMosaic  law,  which  is  drawn  from  the  inability  of  that 
law  to  deliver  man  from  the  dominion  of  sin.  To  the  whole 
of  my  discussion  you  [in  the  notes  at  the  end  of  II.  Diss. 
chap.  xi.  which  I  examine  here  for  the  sake  of  greater  con- 
venience]  oppose  the  following  words.  "  After  your  excur- 
sions,  you  now  return  to  the  point,  and  examine  the  grounds 
on  which  St.  Paul  excludes  works,  and  what  works,  from 


200  J'Vhat  ivorks,  and  in  what  sense, 

s  T  R I  c.  justification.     You  hold  that  because  of  tlie  insufficiency  of 
— '—^ —  the  law,  whicli  lias  no  power  unto  sauctification,   St.  Paul 


excludes  works  wliich  are  done  in  oui'  natural  state  without 
the  grace  of  the  Gospel,  but  with  the  weak  assistanee  of  the 
law  of  Moses  or  of  nature,  and  by  the  presumption  of  natm'al 
powers.  To  these  thiugs  I  oppose  the  following  considera- 
tions.  1.  Your  phantasy  of  the  insufficiency  of  the  law 
is  no  where  visible  in  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
2.  Its  weakness  unto  sanctification  is  a  different  thing 
from  weakness  unto  the  justification  of  a  sinner  in  God's 
sight.  3.  St.  Paul  does  not  set  up  a  post,  wherewith  to  en- 
gage  for  the  exercise  of  the  arms  of  his  talent ;  but  enters 
into  confiict  with  the  opponents  of  the  righteousness  of  God. 
The  Jews,  swollen  with  Pharisaical  pride,  sought  righteous- 
ness from  the  observance  of  the  law,  in  the  Performance  of 
whicli  they  considered  themselves  aided  by  the  grace  of  God, 
as  the  Pharisee  who  gave  thanks  to  God  for  his  wtues  and 
good  works,  Luke  xviii.  11,  12.  No  one  contends  that  he 
can  be  justified  by  works  performed  without  the  grace  of  God. 
The  Gentiles  knew  this,  who  said,  %a)pt9  Sai/u,ovo<i  ovSeh  äyad6<i, 
*no  one  is  good  without  God.^  4.  St.  Paul  speaks  of  Abraham, 
David,  and  all  servants  of  God  who  by  God^s  mercy  are  justi- 
fied through  Christ  and  to  whom  God  imputes  righteousness 
without  works,  Rom.  iv.  6.  Surely  the  Apostle  excludes 
works,  even  the  good  works  which  the  faithful  perform.  For 
there  can  be  no  doubt  whether  or  not  a  man  is  justified  by 
bad  or  indifi'erent  works." 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XX. 

Before  I  answer  your  several  arguments  one  by  one,  I 
must  remind  the  reader  that  in  the  Harmony  I  have  made 
vid.Hann.  distiuction  enough   between  works,  Avhich    St.  Paul,   '  with 
vii.  2  3!    respect  to  somewhat  eise,'  Kard  ti,  and  which  he  '  absolutely,' 
and  xii.  2.  difKoi'i,   cxcludcs  from  justification.     In  one  respect  he  ex- 
cludes all  good  works  altogether :  \\z.  so  far  as  to  deny  that 
any  man  by  his  best  works  can  be  justified  through  any  other 
law  than  that  which  is  founded  in  the  meritorious  blood  and 
sacrifice  of  Clirist.     Absolutely  St.  Paul   rcjects   only  such 
works  from  justification  as  are  either  ritual,  or  even  moraJ, 


are  exciuded  from  justification.  201 

when  performed  by  tlie  power  alone  of  tlie  law  of  Moses  s  T  R  i  c. 

(not  to  mention  tlie  law  of  nature) ;   i.  e.  the  Apostle  lias 1_L^_ 

rejected  altogether  tlie  external  and  cariial  righteousness, 
whicli  does  not  go  beyond  the  letter  of  tlie  law  and  tlie  cove- 
naiit  of  Sinai,  as  tliat  wliich  would  by  no  means  suffice  with 
God  to  a  man^s  justification,  or  his  acceptance  unto  salva- 
tion.  This  I  liave  proved  at  more  length  in  the  elucida- 
tion  of  the  second  argument  of  the  Apostle.  Briefly :  the 
question  is  of  the  meritorious  cause  of  our  justification.  This 
the  Apostle  places  in  the  rederaption  and  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ  our  Sa\iour  alone,  all  works  of  ours  of  every  sort 
exciuded,  and  this  is  the  object  of  the  first  argument  of  the 
Apostle.  Again,  the  question  is  of  the  indispensable  cause  of 
our  justification,  or  of  the  condition  required  oii  our  part. 
Here  St.  Paul  does  not  exclude  all  works  altogether  from 
justification,  but  either  ritual  works  of  the  law,  or  even  moral 
outward  Avorks,  which  could  be  performed  without  the  special 
grace  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  And  to  this 
point  the  second  argument  of  the  Apostle  is  directed,  which 
I  have  unfolded  in  this  ninth  and  following  chapters  of 
the  second  Dissertation.  I  must  here  repeat  these  things, 
because  there  is  no  härm  in  takiug  every  precaution  (as  you 
have  warned  me) ;  nay  it  is  actually  necessary  to  my  purpose, 
since  I  have  to  dispute  with  so  unfair  an  adversary,  so  utterly 
estranged  from  all  Christian  candour,  as  to  distort  every  thing 
I  say. 

§  3.  Thus  much  premised,  I  come  to  the  arguments  with 
which  you  oppose  my  statements  in  the  ninth  and  thirteenth 
chapters  of  the  second  Dissertation.  Let  your  first  argument 
come  forth  into  the  field :  "  Your  phantasy  respecting  the 
insufficiency  of  the  law  is  no  where  visible  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistle  to  the  Romans."  I  answer  :  If  all  which  I  have  said 
at  some  length,  in  five  whole  chapters,  on  the  inability  of  the 
Mosaic  law  (viewed  according  to  the  letter)  to  beget  saving 
piety  in  men,  and  which  I  have  supported  by  sound  testi- 
monies  from  St.  Paul;  if,  I  say,  all  this  is  the  mere  phantasy 
of  my  dreaming  brain,  and  is  no  where  visible  in  St.  Paul, 
then  I  shall  despair  for  the  future  of  cvcr  being  able  to  state 
any  thing  at  all  as  certaiu :  I  sliould  hold  (if  Pjni'rho's  school 
could  hold  any  thing  to  be  certain,  establishcd,  or  fixcd)  that 


202         Connection  of  sanctification  with  justification. 

S  T  R I C.  of  all  mortals  tlie  sceptics  were  tlie  Avisest.  and  that  in  humau 

XX 
— —  matters  tliere  is  nothing  certain  to  be  found.     Let  any  fair 

judge   read   those   five   chapters    seriously,  attentively,  and 

impartially^  and  let  liim  decide  wlietlier  I  am  deluded  by  a 

pliantasy^  or  wbetlier  my  censurer  is  not  rather  doing  homage 

to  bis  own  impudence. 

§  3.  Your  next  argument  comes  fortb.  "  Weakness  unto 
sanctification  is  a  different  tbing  from  weakness  unto  tbe 
justification  of  a  siuner  in  God^s  sigbt."  I  allow  it.  Never- 
theless,  these  two  tliings  are  so  intimately  connected,  one 
with  the  other,  that  they  cannot  be  separated  from  each  other  : 
and  so  the  law,  which  is  weak  unto  sanctification,  i.  e.  the 
dehverance  of  a  man  from  the  dominion  of  sin,  will  be  weak 
also  unto  justification  :  so  that  it  is  absurd  for  you  to  be  con- 
tinually  objectiug  in  this  Stricture,  that  I  confound  justifica- 
tion with  sanctification.  I  have  never  done  so,  nor  am  I  likely 
to  do  so.  Nevertheless,  I  constantly  afiBrm  that  justification 
by  Divine  appointment  presupposes  sanctification,  at  least  the 
piimary  and  less  perfect  sanctification.  For  God,  though 
He  justify  the  ungodly  through  Christ,  (Rom.  iv.  5,)  i.  e.  bim, 
who  having  been  such,  yct  through  faith  and  true  repent- 
ance  has  ceased  to  be  such,  nevertheless  will  not  justify 
the  ungodly,  Exod.  xxxiv.  7,  i.  e,  bim  who  still  remains  in  bis 
"vvickedness.  Briefly :  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  righteous- 
ness  of  God  (as  we  have  said  elsewhere)  to  forgive  any  man 
his  sins,  and  withal  to  give  bim  a  right  to  a  heavenly  bfe, 
who  is  not  cleansed  from  his  sins,  nay,  who  is  not  also  in  a 
manner  made  partaker  of  'the  Divine  nature.'  Rightly 
therefore,  and  most  wisely  does  the  Apostle,  speaking  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  conclude  from  its  weakness  unto  sanctifica- 
tion, its  weakness  unto  justification.  I  wonder  at  this  being 
questioned  by  any  one  who  obserscs  that  in  the  very  context 
of  the  argument,  in  which  he  contends  that  no  one  is  justified 
by  the  law  of  Kloses,  St.  Paid  has  inserted  so  many  things 
about  the  weakness  of  this  law.  \Miat  then !  has  the  most 
grave  and  inspired  Apostle  spoken  ii'relevantly,  or  was  he 
ignorant  what  would  suit  his  cause? 

§4.1  come  to  your  third  argument.  "  St.  Paul,''  you  say, 
"  does  not  set  up  a  post,"  &c.  "\Mien  I  first  read  this  argu- 
ment I  was  fairly  astouishedj    I  could  never  have  believed 


Inconsistency  qf  the  Censurei-^s  third  argumenf.        203 

(had  von  not  forced  my  belief  by  such  a  monstrous  instance)  s  T  R  T  C. 
that  party  feeling  could  have  had  such  power.  To  wit.  To  ^^' — 
make  me  seem  heterodox,  the  whole  world,  on  the  question 
of  necessity  of  grace,  is  made  orthodox.  So  the  Pharisees, 
the  proudest  of  the  Jews,  thought  most  rightly  on  the  neces- 
sity of  grace;  uay  the  Gentiles^  as  regards  that  question, 
"were  wise  enough;  and  St.  Paul  "uould  have  been  trifling 
and  fighting  with  a  shadow,  had  he  spoken  against  works 
done  by  natural  powers  without  the  grace  of  God.  Could 
you  believe  your  ownself,  when  you  were  telHng  this  pretty 
little  tale  ?  I  can  scarce  believe  it.  You  could  not  be  igno- 
rant  that  I  had  proved  in  the  fifteeuth  chapter  of  II.  Diss. 
from  the  Scriptures,  Josephus,  and  Rabbis,  that  all  the 
"masters  of  IsraeF'  lived  in  profound  and  most  gross  igno- 
rance  of  grace;  the  Sadducees  holding  the  absolute  power 
of  free-will,  while  the  Phaiisees  gave  to  fate  and  to  the  stars 
the  honour  due  to  DiWne  grace.  You  were  not  unaware  that 
in  §  19  of  the  same  chapter  I  had  set  myself  to  answer  your 
objection  about  the  Pharisee's  giving  of  thanks.  Hence  you 
write  thus  at  the  end  of  that  chapter  :  "  St.  Paul  was  the 
strenuous  advocate  of  Divine  grace  against  the  proud  conceit 
of  our  natural  powers  and  works  having  any  power  in  rege- 
neration.  But  in  the  argumeut  on  justification,  which  he 
begins  and  goes  through  with  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
he  is  avowedly  not  speaking  of  the  eflBcacy  of  sanctifying 
grace.  This  Dissertation  therefore,  though  füll  of  great 
learning,  throws  no  light  on  the  state  and  determination  of 
the  question."  Where  you  pretty  evidently  allow  that  what 
I  have  said  in  this  chapter  is  true,  though  not  to  the  point. 
Besides,  if  St.  Paul  were  a  strenuous  advocate  for  Divine  grace 
against  the  proud  conceits  as  to  oiu'  natural  powers,  then 
there  must  have  been  men  who  entertained  those  proud 
conceits,  or  the  Apostle  would  have  stuck  up  a  post  to  fight 
with.  But  who  could  these  men  be  ?  Jews  ?  you  deny  that. 
Gentiles  ?  you  will  not  allow  that.  But  thus  do  men  vaiy 
(as  a  great  man  of  old  has  truly  said)  who  do  not  speak  from 
truth,  but  say  every  thing  artificially. 

§  5.  To  your  fourth  and  last  argument  about  Abraham 
and  Dand,  I  am  obliged  more  than  once  to  inform  the  reader 
that  I  have  givcn  a  füll  answer  in  Harm.,  II.  Diss.  xii.  14,  15. 


204  The  iveakness  of  the  law  of  Muses 

STRIC.  Where  I  have  also  shewn  clearly  (same  chapter,  §  13.)  that 
'- —  the  appendix  of  tliis  argument,  vdz.  that  it  never  could  be 

questioned  whether  a  mau  is  justified  or  not  from  bad  or 

indifferent  \vorks_,  is  an  impertinent  ca^il. 


STRICTURE  XXI. 

ON  DISS.  II.  X.  3.  p.  118. 

In  this  chapter,  as  I  am  about  to  explain  more  clearly  the 
Apostle^s  argument  drawn  from  the  we.akness  of  the  law,  I 
observe  that  the  old  law  labom-ed  under  the  defect  of  both 
assisting  graces,  viz.  the  external,  or  the  promise  of  eternal 
life,  and  the  internal,  or  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spii'it.  As 
regards  the  former,  I  observe  that  it  is  no  slight  proof  of  the 
weakness  of  the  law,  that  its  promises  and  threatenings,  in 
which  the  force  of  every  law  lies,  were  merely  temporal  and 
earthly.  After  having  explained  this  briefly,  I  conclude  the 
section  thus :  "  The  law  therefore  of  Moses,  which  promises 
nothing  beyond  this  life,  could  not  produce  in  men  a  sincere, 
ardent,  and  indefatigable  love  of  virtue."  To  this  you  reply  : 
"  How  near  akin  to  blasphemy  is  this  derogation  from  the  law 
of  INIoses,  which  is  directly  opposed  to  Christ's  words  in  the 
parable  of  the  rieh  man,  Luke  xvi.  29,  and  elsewhere ;  see  Jolin 
V.  39.  This  comes  out  of  the  pools  of  Socinus.  You  do  not 
understand  Moses  better  than  the  Sadducees,  whom  our 
Savionr  proved  to  be  Ignorant  of  Scriptiu-e.  The  law  of 
Moses  embraced  and  taught  much  inore  than  a  mere  cove- 
naut  concerning  the  possession  of  Canaan  in  peace." 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XXI. 

§  1.  I  would  wish  for  your  own  sake,  that  your  choler 
were  not  here  so  hot  against  me ;  for  certainly  either  your 
zeal  "  not  according  to  knowledge,'^  or  the  immoderate  desire 
of  defending  a  rashly  conceived  hypothesis,  has  hurricd  you 
beyond  all  bounds  of  Christian  truth,  candour,  or  moderation. 
You  say  that  this  doctrine  of  mine  has  becn  drawn  out  of  the 
pools  of  Socinus ;  (that  most  impure  father  of  heresy ;)  that  I 
know  no  more  of  the  Old  Testament  than  did  the  Sadducees  : 
lastl}',  that  this  doctrine  is  near  akin  to  blasphemy.  Ilcavy 
iudced  is  the  charge,  if  it  be  true;  but  hcavy  on  the  othcr 


towards  producing  holiness  of  life.  205 

hand  is  vom*  calurany,  if  it  be  false.     Would  that  you  could  s  TRIC. 
as  easily  free  yoursclf  froni  the  charge  of  reviling,  as  I  can  ' — 

vindicate  my  Statement  from  tlie  odium  with  which  you  have 
loaded  it. 

§  2.  To  make  the  subject  clearer,  I  remind  the  reader  that 
in  this  chapter  of  my  book  I  have  cautiouslv  and  carefullv  Harm.  ii. 
explained  in  what  sense  I  have  affirmed  that  eternal  hfe  is  „  123. 
not  promised  in  the  Old  Testament.     First^  I  expressly  avow 
that  by  the  Old  Testament  I  mean  with  the  Apostle,  Gah  iv. 
24,  the  covenant  made  on  Mount  Sinai  with  the  Israehtes, 
Moses  being  the  mediator,  as  distiuguished  from  the   0kl 
Testament,  taken  in  a  wider  sense,  and  comprehending  all 
that  is  contained  in  the  books  of  Moses,  and  the  holy  writ- 
ings  of  the  Prophets.     Nay,  to  this  distinction  of  the  law, 
which  I  learned  from  St.  Austin,  I  expressly  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  reader.     Theii,  I  say,  that  the  covenant  of  Mount 
Sinai  can  be  viewed  in  two  ways,  carnally  and  spiritually: 
carnally,  as  it  was  an  instrument  ordained  for  a  carnal  peo- 
ple  for  a  temporal  advantage;    spiritually,   as  it   promised 
heavenly  things  to  those  endued  with   the  Spirit  of  God, 
under  the  types  of  carnal  things.     Hence  I  allow  that  it  is 
true  both  that  these  earthly  promises,  given  to  the  law  of 
works,  were  signs  of  the  good  things  which  belonged  to  the 
law  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  by  God's  Intention  these  were 
comprehended  under  them :  and  also  that  there  are  in  the 
law  itself  general   promises,  or  promises    made  in    general 
terms,  in  which  it  is  piain  that  eternal  life  not  only  can  be, 
but  in  the  Divine  intention  also  was  comprehended.     These 
things  I  gather  from  the  Interpretation  of  Christ  Himself  and 
His  Apostles,  Mat.  xxii.  31,  32;  Heb.  xi.  16,  &c.  The  whole  I 
sum  up  in  these  few  words :  "  In  a  word,  the  law,  in  a  carnal 
and  literal  view,  did  not  require  spiritual  righteousness,  nor 
promise  eternal  life ;  but,  spiritually  considered,  was  the  very 
Gospel  itself;    and  when  taken  in  this  sense,  the  Apostle 
raises  no  objections  concerning  it.^'     Lastly,  I  do  not  deny 
but  that  the  better  and  more  clear-sightcd  among  the  Jews 
were  induced  by  many  reasons  (which  I  enuraeratc  in  this 
chapter,  §  9.)  to  believe  that  besides  the  special  good  things 
pertaining  to  this  life,  and  expressly  promised  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  God  meant  to  bestow  others  on  His  faithful  worship- 


206  The  promise  of  eternal  life 

s  T  R I  c.  pers  j  nay,  I  say  that  it  is  most  certain,  unless  pious  and 
_-^^_  eminent  men  among  the  people  of  God  can  be  supposed  to 
have  lived  and  died  as  beasts.  I  add  (§  10.)  that  tbe  prophets 
who  flourisbed  in  partieular  ages  among  God's  people,  un- 
folded  even  to  the  people,  aecording  to  their  capacity,  the 
mysteries  of  the  life  to  come,  which  were  hidden  in  the  law. 

§  3.  So  that  it  is  evident  from  hence,  that  you  have  either 
read  my  book  quite  inattentively,  or  have  written  these 
Strictures  on  it  in  despite  of  your  conscience,  fixing  as  you 
do  upon  me  so  often  the  contrary  to  what  I  have  written. 
Thus  in  the  notes  at  page  213  of  my  book,  as  j'ou  are  about 
to  contcnd  witli  me,  or  rather  with  your  shadow,  you  say, 
''  The  law  of  Moses  carried  the  Gospel  veiled  in  the  cere- 
monial  law.  God,  even  in  the  Old  Testament,  taught  and 
requircd  of  His  people  a  spiritual  righteousness ;  and  the 
law  of  Moses  did  not  annul  the  promises  made  to  the  patri- 
archs.  The  faith  then,  by  which  Noah,  and  Abraham,  and 
the  other  scrvants  of  God  were  made  heirs  of  the  promises, 
flourished  also  under  the  law."  I  allow  all  this,  and  in  the 
book  which  you  have  carpcd  at  in  these  Strictures,  have 
often  avowed  in  terms  that  I  allow  it.  So  in  notes  at  page 
215,  when  I  shew  from  the  well-known  passage  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  vii.  19,  that  the  hope  of  a  better  life,  with 
which  we  approach  God,  dopends  not  on  the  covenant  of 
Sinai,  vicwed  aecording  to  the  letter,  but  on  the  Gospel,  of 
old  indeed  darkly  revealed,  and  afterwards  brought  in  more 
fully,  you  opposc  me  thus :  "  What  sobcr  reader  Avould  you 
persuade  that  no  one  approached  God  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  found  God  propitious  through  Christ  ?"  I  ask  in 
turn  from  you,  Who  in  his  senses  could  think  that  I  wished 
to  persuade  any  one  such  a  thing  ? 

§  4.  To  return  therefore  to  ray  purpose :  when  I  assert 
that  eternal  life  is  not  promised  in  the  Old  Testament,  I 
mean  tliis :  that  the  promise  of  eternal  life  is  not  contained 
in  the  covenant  of  Sinai  in  its  literal  sense,  nor  was  that  pro- 
mise made  to  the  outward  righteousness  exacted  aecording 
to  the  letter  of  the  law ;  but  whatever  spiritual  and  eternal 
good  was  hiddenly  and  secretly  comprehended  by  God's 
intention  in  tlie  words  of  that  covenant,  all  related  to  the 
New  Testament   or  the   Gospel,  veiled    and    shadowed    out 


not  contained  in  tke  covenant  of  Sinai.  207 

under  the  Old  Testament.  Now  if  this  be  Socinianism,  s  T  R  l  c. 
Sadduceeism,  or  blasphemy,  then  (I  shudder  as  I  write  tlie  — ^-^ — i— 
words)  liave  the  inspired  writers  of  tlie  New  Testameut,  as 
I  have  shewn  at  length  in  examination  of  the  nineteenth 
Stricture,  put  Socinianism,  Sadduceeism  and  blasphemy 
before  us  in  many  passages :  then  also  were  the  most  ap- 
proved  ancient  writers  in  the  Chiirch,  who  before  us,  as  a 
body,  have  held  this  opinion,  Sociiiians,  Sadducees,  Blas- 
phemers.  See  Gerard.  Vossius  Resp.  ad  Judicium  Raveus- 
pergeri,  c.  23,  throughout.  There  that  eminent  man  has 
compiled  from  the  ancients,  chiefly  from  St.  Austin,  a  vast 
heap  of  testimouiesj  which  both  confirm  and  excellently 
explain  this  doctrine. 

§  5.  Nay,  it  is  e\"ident  that  this  doctrine,  which  yoii  have 
decried  thus  fearfuUy,   was   the   common  judgment   of  all 
CathoKcs,  in  the  age  in  which  St.  Austin  tiourished.     For 
thus   he   writes   against   Faustus   the   Mauichtcan  :    "  That  vol.  vi.  1.4. 
temporal  promises  are  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  r'^,  'jy  ^ 
that  it  is  on  that  account  called  the  Old  Testament,  no  one  '-•  ^oi.  vül 
of  US  doubts,  or  that  the  promise  of  eternal  life  and  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  belong  to  the  New  Testament."     What 
if  your  hypothesis  in   Opposition  to  my  doctrine,  \'iz.   that 
eternal  life  is  promised  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  such,  was 
condemned  in  Pclagius  by  the  Catholics  in  St.  Austin's  time 
as  eiToneous,  if  not  heretical  ?     This  no  doubt  will  sccm 
stränge  to  you,  but  believe  your  own  eyes:  St.  Austin  saysvol.vn.de 
that  it  was  objccted  against  Pclagius  by  the  Catholics  in  the  i^f.tü'^e  5' 
Svnod  of  Lvdda  that  he  taught  in  his  writinirs,  "that  the[v"lx.  p. 

"  '  l')8  1 

kingdom  of  heaven  was  promised  in  the  Old  Testament :" 
that  Pclagius,  however,  clearcd  himself  before  the  Synod 
somewhat  deccitfully,  in  that  he  brought  forward  testimonies 
not  indeed  from  the  Old  Testament  properly  and  strictly  so 
called,  i.  e.  from  the  words  of  the  covenant  of  Sinai,  but  from 
the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  takcu  in  its  wider  sensc. 
St.  Austin  exposcd  this  fraud  in  these  words:  "Anothcr  thing 
was  quoted  which  he  wrote  in  his  book  ;  '  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  promised  evcn  in  the  Old  Testament/  to  which 
Pelagius  answered,  This  can  be  proved  from  the  Scriptures, 
though  it  is  denied  by  heretics  to  the  wronging  of  the  Old 
Testament.     But  I  have  foUowed  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 


208  The  het'esy  of  Pelagius  on  this  point. 

S  T  R I C.  tures  in  saying  so^  since  it  is  written  in  tlie  propliet  Daniel, 
XXI 


Dan.  7. 18 


'  But  the  saints  of  tlie  Most  High  sliall  take  tlie  kingdom ;' 
and  when  tliis  answer  was  received,  tlie  Synod  said  '  tliat 
this  -uas  not  opposed  to  the  Church^s  faith/  Was  it  without 
reason  then,  tliat  our  brethren  Avere  moved  to  object  to  these 
words  amoug  other  things  ?  No  surelv,  but  the  words 
'Old  Testament^  are  spoken  of  in  two  "wars :  in  one  way 
according  to  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture :  in  another 
"way  according  to  the  customary  way  of  speaking.  For 
St.  Paul  speaks  thus  to  the  Galatians  :  '  Teil  me/  says  he, 
'  ye  that  desire  to  be  under  the  law,  do  ye  not  hear  the 
law?  for  it  is  written,  that  Abraham  had  two  sons,  the  one 
by  a  bond-maidj  the  other  by  a  free-woman :  which  things 
are  an  allegorj^ :  for  these  are  the  two  covenants ;  the  one 
which  gendereth  to  bondage,  which  is  Agar ;  for  this  Agar  is 
INIount  Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  answereth  to  Jerusalem  which 
now  is,  and  is  in  bondage  with  her  children :  but  Jerusalem 
Avliich  is  above  is  free,  which  is  the  mother  of  us  all.^  Since 
tlien  the  Old  Testament  gendereth  to  bondage,  it  is  said, 
'  Gast  out  the  bond-woman  and  her  son,  for  the  son  of  the 
bond-woman  shall  not  be  heir  with  my  son  Isaac  :'  but  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  which  is  unto  liberty,  how  pertaineth 
this  to  the  Old  Testament  ?  Since  however,  as  I  have  said, 
we  usually  speak  so  as  to  call  all  the  Scriptures  of  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets,  which  Avere  delivered  before  the  incarnation 
of  our  Lord,  and  come  under  the  authority  of  the  canons,  by 
the  name  of  the  Old  Testament ;  who,  that  is  ever  so  little 
learned  in  ecclesiastical  writings,  knows  not  that  in  those 
Scriptures  the  kingdom  of  heaven  could  be  promised,  even 
as  also  the  New  Testament,  to  which  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
belongs?"  St.  Austin  also,  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the 
same  book,  relates  that  Pelagius  was  forced  by  the  Fathers 
of  that  Synod,  araong  other  things  to  condemn  in  terms  this 
doctrine  of  bis,  if  he  would  escape  condcmnation.  These  are 
St.  Austin's  words :  "  We  see  then  and  hold,  that  the  most 
pernicious  evils  of  such  heresy  as  this,  viz.  '  that  Adam  was 
made  mortal,^  were  condemned  not  only  by  Pelagius  but  also 
by  the  holy  Bishops  who  presided  over  that  Council ;  and 
that  this  heresy  might  be  more  fully  explained  and  set  forth, 
it  is  addcd,  '  Whether  hc  sinucd,  or  siuncd  not,  hc  Avas  to 


Spoken  of  hy  Jerome.  209 

die  :  that  liis  eins  hurt  him  alone,  and  not  raankind ;  that  tlic  S  T  R  l  C 
aw  conducts  to  the  kiugdom  even  as  the  Gospel.'" 


§  6.  No  one  ought  to  wouder  that  the  Catholic  doctors  so 
severely  opposed  the  doctrine  of  Pelagius,  \\z.  that  "  eterual 
life  is  promisedP  in  the  old  law,  as  distingnished  from  the 
Gospel/'  since  it  is  at  open  ^var  with  the  two  first  prin- 
ciples  of  Chiistian  faith  {set  forth  in  the  examination  of 
Stricture  XVII.,  in  the  first  and  fourtli  Theses) :  viz.  Ist. 
that  the  covenant  of  life  eutered  into  with  Adam  in  a  perfect 
State  was  made  void  through  his  sin  not  ouly  to  himself,  but 
to  his  posteritT,  so  that  all  the  sons  of  Adam,  as  such,  are 
sons  of  death,  i.  e.  entirely  shut  out  from  all  promise  of 
etemal  life.  2ndly,  that  God  hath  entered  into  no  covenant 
of  eternal  life  with  the  descendants  of  fallen  Adam,  which 
has  not  been  coufirmed  and  ratified  in  Christ  oiu'  Sa^iom'; 
and  therefore  none  other  than  the  Gospel.  Hence  also 
Pelagius  inferred  that  a  man  might  by  any  law,  even  by  that 
of  nature,  obtain  heavenly  and  eternal  life.  But  to  resume 
the  main  subject. 

§  7.  Some   light    wiU   be   thrown   on   these   passages    of 
St.  Austin,  by  a  passage  of  Jerome,  wliere  he  thus  addi'esses  Hb.  i. 
Critobulus  (wlio  in  these  dialogues  sustains  the  character  of  p^iao-^ 
Pelagius) :  "You  add  besides,  'that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  [§  .31.  vol. 
promised  also  in  the  Old  Testament,'  and  you  bring  forward  "•?" '  "^'^ 
quotations  from  the  Apocrypha :  whereas  it  is  piain  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  was  first  preached  in  the  Gospel  through 
John  the  Baptist,  and  the  Lord  our  Saviour  and  the  Apostles. 
Read  the  Gospels,  &c,    But  you  call  us  Manichseans,  because 
preferring  the  Gospel  to  the  Law,  we  say  that  in  the  latter  is 
the  shadow,  but  in  the  former  the  truth :  while  you  do  not 
perceive  your  own  folly  and  impudencc.     It  is  one  thing  to 
condemn  the  Law  as  a  Manichaean  does;  another  to  prefer 
the  Gospel  to  the  Law  as  the  'Apostles'  do,"  &c.     In  this 
eminent  testimony,  besides  that  it  is  most  evident  that  the 
doctrine,  which  is  contrary  to  ours,  was  condemned  of  old 
by  Cathohcs  in  Pelagius,  two  things    are    especially  to   be 
observed.     Ist.  That  Pelagius  sought  the  proof  of  his  asser- 
tion  in  gencral  from  no  other  place  than  the  writings  of  the 

^  Let  Mr.  Tniman  therefore  see  dared  barefacedly  to  defend  tlie  verj' 
how  he  will  clear  hiinsclf  of  having      dogma  of  Pelagius. 

BULL.  p 


210  The  Fathers  to  he  studied. 

s  T  R I  c.  Apocrvplia :  and  as  these  were  written  some  time  after  the 
Babylonish  captivity,  when  the  doctrine  of  a  futnire  life  (as 


Harm.  II.  has  beeu  observed  elsewLere  in  the  Hai'monv)  T^'as  more 
j2^.^  *  '  '  clearly  known,  it  is  no  wonder  if  this  doctrine  is  set  forth 
there  most  distiuctly.  2ndly.  Tliat  tlie  Heresiarcli  cliai'ged 
the  Catliolics  of  liis  age  -^ith  Manicliseism^  because  tbey 
tauglit  that  tbe  kingdom  of  heaven  was  not  promised  in  the 
Old  Testament :  as  though,  with  that  blasphemoiis  teacher, 
they  had  defamed  the  law  of  God  given  by  Moses.  You  will 
see  therefore,  my  Censurer^  whether  you  yourself  ai'e  not 
guilty  of  somewhat  akin  to  the  crime  of  Pelagius  in  ventni'ing 
to  braud  me  with  the  mark  of  hei'esy  and  even  of  blasphemy, 
for  asserting  this  very  Catholic  doctrine. 

§  8.  Let  the  leai'ned  reader  leaim  from  your  example,  how 
ill-advised  it  is  to  speud  all  one's  labour  and  study  over  the 
writings  of  Systematics  and  Neoterics,  while  entirely  neglect- 
ing  or  but  carelessly  reading  the  remains  of  the  ancients. 
In  tnith^  besides  other  sufBciently  grievous  mischiefs  it 
generally  happens  that  they  repudiate  Catholic  doctrines  as 
heretical,  whüe  on  the  contrary  they  take  up  and  embrace 
the  exploded  madnesses  of  heretics  as  Divine  oracles.  And 
therefore,  O  young  men,  if  you  would  not  be  deceived  by 
these  would-be  theologians,  next  to  the  Holy  Scriptures, 

"  Be  the  Fathers'  works 
"  By  day  and  night  for  ever  in  your  hands." 

STRICTURE  XXII. 

ON  II.  DISS.  X.  4.  p.  119. 

Here  I  say,  "  the  ]\Iosaic  law,  by  containing  only  temporal 
promises  and  threatenings,  was  therefore  adapted  to  produce 
in  men  a  mean  and  sordid  spirit  and  disposition,  entirely 
foreign  to  true  and  genuine  piety/'  &c.  lipon  this  you 
inflict  the  severe  censure,  "  Restrain,  I  entreat  you,  the  petu- 
lance  of  your  tongue,  chattering  against  the  wise  economy 
of  God.  Does  not  Moses,  throughout  the  whole  almost  of 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  by  these  same  arguments  excite 
and  turn  the  people  to  beheve,  fear,  love,  and  obey  God? 
Are  Divine  beuefits  uufit  to  raise  the  mind  to  God?  Did 
not  Moses,  or  the  Lord  Himself  in  the  law  of  iMoses,  consult 


Tendency  of  the  Mosaic  law  earthly,  211 

for  religion,  and  provide  against  this  ingratitude  ?     But  you  S  T  R  l  C 
reproach  God,  when  you  rashly  assert  tliat  the  law,  -nliicli  -^-^ — '— 
was  ordained  by  God  to  produce  piety,  could  not  effect  it. 
You  load  a  pure  and  holy  law  Avith  calumnies,  as  though  it 
were  the  niu'se  of  avarice  and  intemperance.     The  fountain 
surely  is  defiled  whence  this  corrupt  and  unwholesome  Chan- 
nel flows.     Correct  your  words  by  the  better  judgment  of 
Dand  conceruing  the  law  of  God,  given  by  Moses,  which  is  Ps.  19.7,8. 
open  for  you  to  read.^^ 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XXII. 

§  1 .  Better  language  I  pray,  good  Aristarchus !  restrain  your 
own  anger,  or  rather  madness,  and  with  tranquil  and  steady 
judgment  see  if  this  waggon-load  of  reproaches  which  you 
have  heaped  on  me,  a  poor  wretch  already  enough  bruised 
and  afflicted,  does  not  at  length  fall  upon  the  most  holy 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  and  even  upon  the  inspired  wiiters. 
I  am  speaking  of  the  law  or  covenant  of  Sinai  taken  in  its 
carnal  and  literal  sense,  as  promising  nothing  beyond  these 
carnal  and  earthly  advantages.  I  say  that  that  law  thus 
viewed,  was  calculated  to  produce  in  men  a  mean  and  sordid 
disposition,  utterly  at  variance  ^nth  true  and  genuine  piety. 
^Vh.0  in  his  senses  would  ever  question  it  ?  the  very  plain- 
ness  of  the  fact  cries  out  that  what  I  say  is  true.  I  ask  you, 
when  you  shall  have  retumed  to  yourself  ?  Since  true  and 
genuine  piety  consists  chiefly  in  self-denial,  in  contempt  of 
this  World,  in  a  mind  panting  for  a  future  and  a  better  life, 
was  it  possible  that  the  law  of  Moses  should  produce  this 
piety  in  man,  viewed  in  its  carnal  and  hteral  sense,  as  pro- 
mising no  advantage  beyond  this  hfe  ? 

§  2.  But  if  he  who  has  said  this,  must  be  held  to  hare 
chattered  with  petulant  tongue  against  the  wise  economy  of 
God,  to  have  reproached  God  Himself,  &c.,  what  then 
(not  to  mention  all  the  other  Fathers)  will  become  of  St. 
Austin  himself?  Thus  he  writes^  :  '^Although  in  the  Old 
Testament,  on  account  of  the  promise  of  temporal  goods,  and 
threatening  of  temporal  evils,  the  temporal  Jerusalem  brings 

1  Tom.  vi.  contra  adversarium  Legis  et  Prophetarum  1.  17.  [vol.  viii.  p.  56«j. 
§35.] 

p  9 


212  c?  is  tavght  by  St.Augin^tin  and  St.  Paul. 

STRic.  fortli  slaves,  while  in  the  Ne-w  Testament,  where  faith  whis 
XXii^  love,  wlicreby  the  law  may  be  fulfilled  no  less  by  tlie  love  of 
rigliteousness  than  by  the  fear  of  punishment,  the  eternal 
Jerusalem  briugs  forth  free  men  :  yet  even  in  those  times 
were  there  spiritually  rigliteous  men  who  were  not  slain  by 
the  letter,  which  commanded,  but  were  made  alive  by  the 
Spirit,  which  aided  them.^'  Also'" ;  "  From  the  natural  sense, 
because  the  natiu'al  man  perceiveth  not  the  tliings  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  arise  all  dissensions  and  schisms ;  and  all  who 
go  on  guided  by  this  sense,  the  Apostle  says,  belong  to  the 
Old  Testament,  i.  e.  to  the  desire  of  earthly  promises  :  in 
which  indeed  spintual  things  are  figured,  but  the  natural 
man  perceiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,"  &c. 
Again^;  "  It  is  piain  that  even  that  Scriptm'e  which  was 
given  to  the  eider  people,  was  the  law  of  Christ,  which  He 
came  to  fulfil  by  love,  but  which  was  not  fulfilled  through 
fear.  Tlie  same  Scripture  therefore,  while  it  depresses  slaves 
bent  upon  earthly  goods,  is  called  the  Old  Testament,  but  is 
called  the  Xew  Testament  as  elevating  free  men  burning  for 
eternal  goods /^ 

§  3.  But  why  do  I  speak  of  the  Fathers  ?  St.  Paul  the 
Apostle  (whose  authority  you  abuse  every  where  for  the  con- 
fimaation  of  your  own  dreams)  says  the  same  plainly  as  we. 

Gal.  4. 24.  Speaking  of  the  covenant  of  Sinai,  as  it  is  opposed  to  the 
Gospel,  he  says  that  that  covenant  '  gendereth  to  bondage.' 
But  «hat  is  this  bondage  ?  Hear  a  most  learned  Interpreter. 
"  The  bondage  to  which  the  Old  Testament  begat  its  sons 
consisted  partly  in  the  unbearable  yoke  of  ceremonial  pre- 
cepts,  laid  upon  the  necks  of  its  sons  :  partly  in  the  ser^-ile 
affections   and  fear,  by  which  they  were  govemed :    which 

Rom.8.15.  the  Apostle  calls  '  the  spirit  of  bondage  to  fear.'"  And  there- 
fore this  bondage  is  especially  that  servile  disposition  with 
which  men  under  the  Old  Testament,  clinging  to  its  letter 
not  from  the  love  of  rigliteousness,  as  sons,  but  from  the 
hope  of  impending  good,  and  fear  of  impending  evil,  as 
slaves  and  hirclings,  performed  the  ser-vice  of  God.  Ilowever 
therefore  you  interpret  the  'spu'it  of  bondage,'  this  is  piain, 

■■  Vol.  vii.  contra   Donatistas  1.15.  '  Tom.  iv.  Expos,  ad  Gal.  6.  [§  •'58. 

[de  Baptismo  contra  Donat.  1.  23.  vol.       vol.  iii.  p.  976.] 
ix.  p.  92.] 


Interpretation  of  Ps.  xix.  7,  8.  213 

tliat  tliis  spirit  is  opposed  by  the  Apostle  to  '  the  spirit  of  s  T  R  l  C. 
adoption/  or  the  free  gi'ound  of  semng  God^  wliicli  is  eu-  -i^ — — 
joiiied  OD  US  Christians ;  and  therefore  com  es  to  that  meau 
and  sordid  disposition  of  "svhich  I  spoke,  entirely  foreign  to 
tnie  and  genuine  piety.  Xow  St.  Paul  says  that  the  cove- 
nant  of  Sinai  '  gendereth  to  bondage^  of  this  kindj  because  it 
is  naturally  adapted,  by  force  of  its  promises  and  threateningSj 
to  implant  such  a  disposition  in  men. 

§  4.  The  judgment  of  Dand  in  Psalm  the  nineteenth,  "which 
you  appeal  to,  is  not  to  the  purpose.     For  the  law  of  God, 
which  that  holy  man  there  and  continually  in  other  places 
so  much  eulogizeSj  must  by  no  means  be  restncted  to  the 
law  or  covenant  of  Sinai  (of  which  alone  I  am  speaking)  :  but 
(as  Yatablus  on  the  first  and  second  Psalm  remarksj  com- 
prises  not  only  the  law,  but  also  all  the  books  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture  which  had  been  written  up  to  his  time,  which  are  an  ex- 
position  of  the  law.     As  regards  this,  David  (if  any  one)  was 
thoroughly  enough  aware   of  the  mysteries  hidden  in  the 
carnal  law,  and  was   among  the  chief  of  those  spiiitually- 
minded  men,  who,  in  St.  Austin's  words  just  quoted,  "  lived 
in  the  sacraments  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  hiddeuly  be- 
longed  to   the   Tsew  Testament   which  then  was   hidden.^' 
So  that  the   words    in  which    a   most  ancient    Father  and 
mart}T,  St.  Justin,  rebukes  the  unskilfulness  of  the  Jews  in  Dial.cum 
interpreting  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  suit  you  and  25i'^rc34 
such  as  you  exactly.     "You  deceive  yourselves  by  equivocal  p.  131.] 
expressions.     For  where  the  law  of  the  Lord  is  called  blame- 
less,  you  understand  it  not  as  that  which  was  to  be  after 
Moses,  but  as  that  which  was  made  by  Moses ;  though  God 
Himself  proclaims  that  He  will  make  a  new  law  and  a  new 
covenant." 

§  5.  It  may  here  be  objected,  If  the  law  of  Sinai  was  cal- 
culated  to  engender  that  servile  disposition  in  men,  must  it 
not  be  imputed  to  God,  the  Author  of  that  law,  that  most  of 
the  Jews  did  not  rise  above  that  servile  disposition?  I  au- 
swer,  Far  from  it.  For  it  was  sufficiently  provided  by  Divine 
care,  that  the  Jews  should  not  remain  in  the  Icttcr  of  the 
law  of  Sinai.  For  God  provided  that  the  tradition  of  a 
futurc  lifc,  lianded  down  from  the  patriarchs,  (whether  dcrived 
immcdiately  from  Ilimself,  or  taught  in  othcr  ways,  as  cspe- 


214         The  Jews  not  confined  to  the  letter  of  the  law. 

STRIC.  cially  by  the  preaching  so  also  by  tbe  example  of  Enoch^) 

— '—  should  flourish  even  under  tlie  law^  and  shoidd  botb  be  ex- 

j4  ^  ^^^*  plained  and  confirmed  by  the  preaching  of  prophets,  whom 
Gen,  5. 24.  from  time  to  time  He  raised  up  among  His  people.  Whence 
it  is  evident  that  the  existence  of  the  soul  after  the  death 
of  the  body  was  believed  by  the  oklest  of  the  Jews  who  lived 
after  the  law  of  Moses  was  given.  This,  I  say,  is  evident 
(not  to  mention  other  argnments)  from  the  history  of  Saul 
Consulting  and  seeking  the  witch  in  order  to  have  a  Con- 
ference with  Samuel,  who  was  already  dead :  which  of  course 
he  would  not  have  done,  had  he  not  believed  that  the  soul  of 
the  dead  prophet  still  sur\äved.  Sui'ely  the  vekum,  the  most 
ancient  of  all  divinations,  was  a  sign  (as  has  been  observed 
by  a  most  eminent  writer)  of  the  belief  in  the  permanency  of 
souls  after  death.  But  to  what  purpose  would  the  soul  exist 
after  the  death  of  the  body,  were  not  its  hfe  to  be  wretched 
or  happy,  according  to  what  it  had  done  in  the  body  ?  That 
sph'itual  righteousness  also,  to  which  alone  (not  to  external 
and  cai'nal  righteousness,  prescribed  in  the  letter  of  the  law 
of  Sinai)  the  promise  of  eternal  lifo  was  given,  was  suf- 
ficiently  revealed  by  God  to  the  Jews  from  time  to  time, 
both  by  Moses  and  by  succeeding  prophets.  Moses  himself, 
in  the  sermon  in  Moab,  or  in  Deuteronomy,  (which  you 
vid.Harm.  would  rightly  Call  the  Gospel  of  Moses,)  often,  as  it  were, 
^  ■  3_  '^'''  recalls  the  Israelites  from  the  external  ceremonies  of  the  law, 
which  he  had  just  given  them,  to  internal  piety;  from  the 
circumcision  of  the  flesh,  to  the  circumcision  of  the  heart; 
and  wams  them  expressly,  that  what  all  their  salvation  turns 
upon,  is  their  obedience  to  one  precept,  loving  God  with  all 
their  hearts,  for  the  Performance  of  which  precept  he  pro- 
miscs  them  grace  and  assistance  in  God's  name.  See  cspe- 
cially  Deut.  x.  12 — 16 ;  xxx.  6.  The  same  was  done  and  in 
clearer  words  by  the  prophets,  who  succeeded  !Moses,  as  one 
may  sce  1  Sam.  xv.  22;  Ps.  1.  7 — 17;  h.  16,  17;  Isaiah 
i.  10—21;  Jer.  vii.  21—23;  Hosea  vi.  6;  Mich.  vi.  6—8, 
and  continually  in  other  placcs ;  and  therefore  the  Jews  were 
without  excuse,  who  in  St.  Paul's  time  clung  to  the  letter  of 
the  law  of  Sinai :  whether  they  were  Pharisees,  who  while 
they  acknowledged  indced  a  mystery  in  the  letter  of  the  pro- 
mise, yet  looked  not  beyond  the  letter  of  the  precept :   or 


Citation  of  the  eleventh  article  of  our  Church.         215 

whether  tliey  were  Sadducees,  who  took  both  promise  and  ST R IC. 
precept  according  to  the  letter  of  tlie  Mosaic  law.  But  — ^ — '— 
enough  of  tliis. 

§  6.  "What  foUows  in  my  second  Dissertation  concerning 
the  Apostle^s  argument  relative  to  the  ritual  law  of  Moses 
(eh.  xiv.),  concerning  Jewish  doctrines  (eh.  xv.  xvi.  xvii.  and 
the  Contents  of  the  epilogue  of  the  work),  on  being  carefiilly 
on  our  guard  against  four  several  errors  in  this  qnestion  of 
justification,  are  so  piain  and  easy  (tliough  our  Censurer  has 
even  nibbled  maliciously  at  sonie  of  these^  but  to  no  purpose) 
that  they  really  need  no  defence.  One  Stricture  only  of  the 
Censurer,  relating  to  the  judgment  of  the  Church  of  England 
on  this  point,  now  remains  to  be  briefly  disposed  of. 

STRICTURE  XXIII. 

ON  II.  DISS.  xvni.  6.  p.  196. 

Here,  in  the  epilogue  of  the  work,  seriously  advising  the 
reader  to  beware  of  the  four  errors  on  this  important  ques- 
tion  of  justification,  I  first  attack  their  error  who  attribute 
merit  of  condignity  to  the  good  works  of  men.  As  the  best  meritum 
antidote  to  this  error,  or  rather  heresy,  I  oppose  the  decision  ^^^^q' 
of  our  Church  in  these  words  :  ''  From  this  error  in  particular, 
concerning  the  merit  of  good  works  in  the  matter  of  justifi- 
cation,  our  Holy  Mother,  the  English  Church,  would  guard 
her  sons,  by  the  eleventh  article,"  &c.  These  words  you 
attack  most  severely.  "  I  am  astonished  at  your  citation  of 
the  article  of  our  Church.  Who  can  help  seeing  your  blind- 
ness  as  well  as  shamelessness  ?  the  former,  in  that  you 
shut  your  eyes  to  the  Solifidianism  (as  you  love  to  stigmatize 
my  doctrine)  therein  expressed  ;  the  latter,  in  that  you  have 
dared  to  tamper  with  the  judgment  of  our  good  mother, 
partly  by  ill-patclied  sophisms,  partly  hj  unseemly  re- 
proaches."  Afterwards  (in  margin  of  p.  340)  you  call  me 
"  a  most  shameless  interpolator  of  Holy  Scripture  and  eccle- 
siastical  doctrine." 

ANSWER  TO  STRICTURE  XXIII. 

§  1.  I  allow  that  you  havo  hcre  (as  constantly  clscwhere) 
brought  forth  fruit  worthy  of  your  own  SoUfidianism,  (not 


216  The  Censurer's  calumnies, 

s  T  R I  c.  sucli  as  our  Holy  INIotlier  tlie  Eno;lish  Church  teaches,  God 

XXIII  .  .     . 

^-^ forbid  !)  For,  trustiug  iu  your  own  justifyiug  self-confidence, 

just  as  tbough  tliere  were  no  account  to  be  rendered  here- 

after  of  your  words  and  actious  at  Christas  tribiinal;  as  tliougli 

you  cared  little  for,  nay  wholly  despised  tbat  tremendous  sen- 

tence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  declaring  that  revilers  togetberwith 

sinners  of  a  darker  dye,  have  no  inberitance  in  tbe  kingdom 

of  beaven^  you  continually  and  sbamelessly  inveigb  against, 

hevr,  and  back  at  your  brotber,  (as  you  call  nie,)  witb  tbe 

most  violent  reproacbes,  gi^^iig  reins  to  your  rage,  wbicb  I 

have  not  even  by  a  word  provoked,  and  to  your  lust  for 

calumny,  and  so  pouring  fortb  tbe  very  "  gall  of  bitteruess" 

on  a  barmless  individual.     I  pray  God  seriously,  He  may 

give  you  a  better  mind.     To  tbe  matter  in  band. 

§  2.  I  appeal  to  competent  judges  in  tbis  cause,  men 
wbose  mercy  T  neitber  ask  nor  expect ;  I  deprecate  not  justice, 
but  injustice ;  nor  am  I  so  conscions  of  guilt,  as  to  sbrink 
from  or  fear  tbe  sti'ictest  examination  of  my  doctrine,  proA"ided 
it  be  impartial.  If  wbat  you  affirm  is  true,  if  any  where  in 
my  Dissertations,  in  utter  sbamelessness,  I  bave  spoken  otber- 
"wise  tban  bonourably  of  tbe  judgment  of  tbe  Englisb  Cburcb; 
still  more  if  I  bave  abused  it :  if  I  have  proved  myself  an  in- 
terpolator  (in  your  sense)  at  all,  still  "storse  a  most  sbameless 
one,  of  eitber  Holy  Scriptiu-e,  or  ecclesiastical  doctrine ;  you 
have  my  füll  concurrence  in  your  appeal  wbicb  you  make  in 
tbe  epilogue  of  your  Dissertations  to  tbe  reverend  prelates  of 
our  Cburcb,  and  in  your  entreaties  to  tbem,  to  rebuke  me. 
Let  tbis  vpretcbed  book  be  cast  into  the  flames  as  it  deserves; 
let  its  author  be  deprived  of  bis  ministrj'  (wbicb  be  bas  now 
exercised  nearly  twenty  years,  and  tbat  by  God's  belp  with 
some  little  diligence)  :  nay,  let  Iura  be  cast  fortb  from  tbe 
bosom  of  bis  dearest  motber,  (to  whom  in  her  worst  mis- 
fortunes  he  bas  constantly  clung,)  as  a  bastard  and  as  an 
alien,  and  let  bim  be  anatbema.  You  see,  reader,  how  great 
is  my  confidence  in  my  own  innocence;  you  sball  judge 
presently  if  it  be  ill-founded. 

§  3.  My  Censurer  accuses  me  of  daring  to  disfigure  the 
judgment  of  tbe  Cburcb  of  England,  delivered  in  her  eleventb 
articlc,  witb  botbill-patcbcd  sopbisms  and  unsccmlyrcproacbes, 
aud  of  iuterpolatiug  ecclesiastical  doctrine,  i.  e.  (accordiug  to 


lohich  are  answered  by  one  argument.  217 

his  meaning,  not  the  proper  sense  of  tlie  word)  comiptmg  s  T  R  i  c. 
and  depraving  it  by  additions.    I  will  use  one  only  argument   ^^^^^- 
in  my  defence^  but  tliat  so  clear  and   evident^  tliat  it  will 
serve  instead  of  many,  and  close  tbe  mouth  of  my  Cen  surer 
for  ever  and  ever,  and  all  otlier  my  accusers  of  tlie  same 
description. 

Whoever  openly,  candidly,  and  sincerely  embraces  and 
professeSj  and  ever  has  embraced  and  professed  that  sense  of 
tlie  eleventh  article  of  the  Churcli  of  England,  whicli  tbe 
Englisb  Church  berself  has  avowedly  and  expressly  handed 
down  as  tbe  one  genuine  and  true  sense  of  the  same  articles, 
that  man  is  wrongly,  undeservedly,  most  undeservedly  ac- 
cused  of  distorting  the  judgment  of  the  Englisb  Church 
in  that  article  by  ill-patched  sophisrns,  or  imseemly  re- 
proaches :  but  the  author  of  a  book  entitled  Harmonia 
Apostolica,  &c.,  openly,  candidly,  and  sincerely  embraces 
and  professes,  and  ever  has  embraced  and  professed  that 
sense  of  the  eleventh  article  of  the  Englisb  Church,  wliich 
the  Englisb  Church  berself  has  avowedly  and  expressly 
handed  down  as  the  one  genuine  and  true  sense  of  the  same 
article :  therefore,  &c. 

§  4.  The  major  premiss  is  one  of  plainest  trutli.  As 
regards  the  assumption,  I  must  re-produce  some  few  words, 
which  I  alleged  before  at  the  end  of  my  Dissertations.  The 
words  of  the  eleventh  article  are  these :  "  We  are  accounted 
righteous  before  God,  only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ  by  faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works  or 
deservings :  wherefore,  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only  is 
a  most  wholesome  doctrine,  and  very  füll  of  comfort,  as  is 
more  largely  expressed  in  the  Homily  of  Justification/^ 
Here  I  have  observed  (p.  207)  that  out  of  the  thirty-nine 
articles  of  the  Church  of  England,  tbirty-eight  are  set 
forth  barely,  and  without  any  explanation :  while  this  one, 
on  justification  by  faith  only,  has  not  been  given  without  the 
express  caution  that  we  are  to  look  for  a  more  lengthened 
and  fuller  explanation  of  it  in  the  Homily  concerning  INIan's 
Justification  :  although  therefore  many  learned  and  weighty 
men  in  our  Church,  have,  perhaps  with  good  reason,  declared 
that  the  book  of  Honiilies  is  not  throughout  of  cqual 
authority  with  our  Articles,  so  that  one  is  not  at  libcrty  to 


218  The  eleventh  article  explained 

S  T  R I  c.  open  oue^s  mouth  or  make  the  slightest  murmur  a^ainst  any 
^^^^^-  doctrine  or  iuterpretation  of  Scripture  tliereiu  delivered : 
(because  forsooth  tliey  were  each  composed  at  first  severally 
by  particular  doctors^  and  were  suited  to  the  disposition  of 
the  people  of  that  time,  and  in  article  thirty-five  nothing 
more  is  determined  of  them  than  that  they  generally  con- 
tain  a  godly  and  wbolesome  doctrine,  and  necessary  for  the 
tiraes  in  which  they  were  made :)  yet  no  one  can  donbt  but 
that  the  sense  of  the  eleventh  article  must  be  fixed  and 
explained  exactly  according  to  the  Homily  of  Salvation, 
unless  he  choose  to  shut  bis  eyes  against  the  clear  and 
express  words  of  the  article  itself.  Nay,  this  is  still  more 
clearly  expressed  (if  this  be  possible)  in  the  articles  of 
Edward  the  Sixth.  For  in  that  edition  of  our  Confession, 
(which  was  the  first,)  the  whole  of  the  article  on  the  Justi- 
fication  of  Man  is  contained  in  these  few  words  :  "  Justifica- 
tion  by  faitli  alone  in  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  sense  (N.B.)  in 
which  it  is  explained  in  the  Homily  on  Justification,  is  a 
most  sure  and  wholesome  doctrine  of  Christians." 

§  5.  This  one  thing  then  remains  to  be  enquired  into : 
viz.  in  what  sense  the  doctrine  of  the  eleventh  article  is 
explained  in  the  Homily  on  the  Justification  or  Salvation  of 
Älankind.  This  explauation  has  been  already  cited  by  us  in 
the  epilogue  of  our  Dissertation  (p.  198),  and  is  here  afresh 
(on  account  of  the  obstinacy  of  the  Censurer)  repeated,  and 
runs  in  these  piain  words.  "  Tlie  true  understanding  of  this 
doctrine,  '  We  be  justified  freely  by  faith,  without  works,^  or 
that  ^we  be  justified  by  fiiith  in  Christ  ouly'  is  not  that  this 
our  own  act  to  believe  in  Christ,  or  this  faith  in  Christ  which 
is  in  US,  doth  justify  us,  and  deserve  our  justification  unto  us, 
(for  that  wcre  to  account  ourselves  justified  by  some  act  or 
virtue  that  is  within  ourselves,)  but  the  true  understanding 
and  mcaning  tliereof  is,  that  although  we  hear  God's  word 
and  bclicvc  it,  although  we  have  faith,  hope,  chaiity,  repent- 
ance,  dread,  and  fear  of  God  within  us,  and  do  never  so  many 
works  thcreunto ;  yet  we  must  renounce  the  merit  of  all  our 
Said  virtues  of  faith,  hope,  chanty,  and  all  other  virtues,  and 
good  deeds,  which  we  either  have  done,  shall  do,  or  can  do, 
as  things  that  be  far  too  wcak  and  insufiicient  and  impcrfect 
to  deserve  rcmission  of  our  sins  and  our  justification,  and 


in  the  Homily  of  Salvation,  219 

therefore  we  must  trust  only  in  God's  mercy  and  that  sacri-  s  T  R  i  c. 
fice  wliicli  our  Higli  Priest  and  Saviom*,  Christ  Jesus,  the  Son   -^-^^^^- 
of  God,  once  ofFered  for  us  on  the  cross,  to  obtain  thereby 
God's  grace  and  remission,  as  well  of  our  Original  sin  in 
Baptism,  as   of  all  actual  sins   committed  by  us   after  our 
Baptism,  if  we  truly  repent,  and  turn  unfeignedly  to  Hirn."    Hom.p.23. 

§  6.  In  tliis  explanation,  two  things  at  once  oceur  to  be 
observed.  Ist.  That  the  Church,  by  her  doctrine  that  ^Ave 
are  justified  by  faith  in  Christ  only/  meant  nothing  eise  tlian 
that,  as  regards  the  meritorious  cause  of  our  justification, 
we  ought  to  renounce  all  our  virtues  and  good  works,  and 
trust  in  God^s  merc}'  alone,  and  the  merits  of  our  Saviour. 
2ndly.  That  the  Church  so  renouuces  the  merits  of  good 
works  in  the  matter  of  justification,  as  meanwhile  plainly 
enough  to  assert  the  necessity  of  them  for  the  obtaining  of 
justification;  whüe  she  acknowledges  that  a  true  and  un- 
feigned  repentance  (which  certainly  is  not  only  a  good  work 
itself,  but  embraces  also  many  virtues  and  good  works)  is  an 
indispensable  condition  for  obtaining  remission  of  sins,  (which 
the  author  of  the  Homily,  both  in  this  exposition  and  con- 
tinually  elsewhere,  holds  to  be  equivalent  to  justification). 
Of  this  exposition  raoreover,  it  is  twice  declared  that  this  is 
the  true  and  right  meaning  of  the  article,  'we  are  justified 
by  faith  in  Christ  only.^ 

§  7.  But  it  must  also  be  especially  remarked,  how  the 
author  of  the  Homily  prefaces  this  exposition.  "  Although  this 
doctrine  be  never  so  true,  (as  it  is  most  true  indeed,)  that  we 
be  justified  freely  without  all  merit  of  our  own  good  works, 
(as  St.  Paul  doth  express  it,)  and  freely,  by  this  lively  and 
perfect  faith  in  Christ  only,  (as  the  ancient  authors  used  to 
speak,)  yet  this  true  doctrine  must  be  also  truly  understood, 
and  most  plainly  declared,  lest  carnal  men  should  take  occa- 
sion  thereby  to  live  carnally,  after  the  appetite  and  will  of 
the  World,  the  flesh  and  the  devil.  And  becausc  no  man 
should  err  by  mistaking  of  this  doctrine,  I  shall  plainly  and 
shortly  so  declare  the  right  understanding  of  the  same,  that 
no  man  shall  justly  think  that  he  may  thereby  take  any 
occasion  of  carnal  liberty,"  &c.  Tlien  follows,  in  as  many  Hoin.p.22. 
words,  the  explanation  already  cited.  In  the  third  part  of  tlie 
Homily  in  the  beginning  of  what  had  bccn  said  before  in 


320  which  is  no  other  than 

s  TRI  c.  explanaticn  of  tlie  articie,  we  have  this  recapitulation.    "  You 
^^ '—  heard  the  ancient  aiitliors'  mincls  of  this  sayiiig,  '  Faith  in 


Christ  only  j  ustifieth  meu/  so  plaiuly  declared^  that  you  see 
that  the  very  true  meaniug  of  this  proposition  or  saying, '  We 
be  justified  by  faith  iii  Christ  only/  (according  to  the  mean- 
ing  of  the  old  ancient  authorsj  is  this :  AYe  put  our  faith  in 
Christ^  that  we  be  justified  by  Hirn  only,  that  we  be  justified 
by  God's  free  merey,  and  the  merits  of  our  Sa^'iour  Christ 
only^  and  by  no  vii'tue  or  good  works  of  our  own  that  is  in 
US,  or  that  we  can  be  able  to  have,  or  to  do,  for  to  deserve 
the  same ;  Clii'ist  Himself  only  being  the  nieritorious  cause 
thereof.  Here  you  perceive  many  words  to  be  used  to  avoid 
contention  in  words  with  them  that  delight  to  brawl  about 
words,  and  also  to  sliew  the  true  nieaning,  to  avoid  evil 
Hom.p.24'.  talking  and  misunderstanding,"  &c. ;  and  therefore  that  man 
must  be  blinder  than  a  mole  who  does  not  see  that  this 
exposition  is  put  forth  by  oiu'  Church  as  the  genuine,  entire, 
clear,  and  perspicuous  doctrine  of  the  article,  '  we  are  justified 
by  faith  in  Christ  only/  so  that  whoever  embraces  this, 
must  be  accounted  so  far  to  have  satisfied  her  judgment  and 
expectation.  Moreover,  in  the  words  of  the  Homily  quoted 
last  by  US,  it  must  be  especially  noted  that  its  author  ex- 
pressly  declares  that  all  questions  and  controversies  which 
ai'e  or  can  be  moved  about  the  words  and  expressious  of  this 
article,  provided  there  be  agreement  about  the  raeaning  of 
his  exposition,  are  to  be  avoided,  as  idle,  useless,  and  even 
harmful  contentions  in  Avords. 

§  8.  Now,  how  often  both  in  my  Dissertations  and  in  the 
Examen,  have  I  plainly  avowed  my  agreement  hereto,  con- 
cerning  the  explanation  of  the  article.  I  fear  not  to  chal- 
lenge  your  malice  and  more  than  Vatinian  hatred,  to  sift 
thoroughly  every  word  I  have  any  where  written,  and  to 
bring  forward  a  single  sentcnce  or  Avord  which  departs  from 
the  doctrine  laid  doAvn  in  this  exposition,  even,  as  they  say, 
a  finger's  breadth :  and  if  you  still  have  doubts  as  to  my 
candour  and  sincerity,  I  would  not  refuse  to  clear  niyself  (if 
necessary)  by  oath.  Therefore,  before  God  as  my  judge, 
whose  anger  I  deprecate  not,  if  I  have  knowingly  deceived,  I 
tcstify  to  all  men,  that  I  truly,  sinccrely  and  heartily  agree 
and  subscribc  to  the  clcvcuth  article  of  our  Church,  according 


that  given  in  tlie  Harmony.  221 

to  the  explanation  she  lias  herseif  given^  (the  words  of  whicli  STRI  C» 
I  take  in  their  present  usual  signification,  -svithoiit  any  equi-  -iJÜHi. 
vocation  or  mental  reservation) . 

§  9.  What  more  would  you  ask  of  me  ?  or  do  you  demand 
tliat  I  am  to  fall  down  before,  and  embrace  as  oracles^  all  tliat 
certain  particular  doctors  have  added  of  their  own  explana- 
tion of  this  article^  on  account  of  their  great  names?  You 
will  never  force  me  to  do  tliis,  my  Censnrer.  Your  explana- 
tion however  of  this  artiele,  'we  are  justified  by  faith  in 
Christ  only/  viz.  that  we  are  jtistified  by  faith  alone  as  a 
Single  A-irtue,  and  that  before  all  true  contrition,  before  all 
obedience  on  our  part,  nay  even  before  any  readiness  to  obey  : 
.  nor  yet  by  any  act  of  faith,  but  by  that  only  which  you  call 
'  trust ;'  by  this  act  of  faith  moreover,  not  as  it  is  an  act  or 
virtue,  or  eondition  required  in  the  Gospel  covenant,  but  as 
an  Instrument  whereby  to  lay  hold  on  Christ's  righteousness, 
and  "svhich  makes  it  our  o\ra ;  making  also  His  inghteousness 
our  own,  not  only  in  effect,  i.  e.  as  regards  the  saving  fruits 
and  effects  of  it,  \\z.  the  remission  of  our  sins,  and  our  accept- 
ance  to  salvation  and  etemal  life,  but  formally,  so  that  that 
righteousness  is  made  really  oui's,  and  we  are  accounted  by 
God  to  have  performed  it,  and  hence  are  made  perfeetly 
righteous  and  free,  not  only  frora  all  punishment,  but  even 
frora  all  fault  of  sin ;  so  that  in  this  justification,  no  place  is 
left  for  remission  of  sins  properly  so  called  : — this,  I  say,  your 
explanation,  inasmuch  as  it  is  diametrically  opposed  to  the 
intei-pretation  of  the  artiele  given  by  the  Church  herseif,  as 
also  to  Holy  Scripture  and  right  reason,  I  fairly  and  broadly 
avow,  that  I  neither  do,  nor  ever  will  admit;  and  I  would 
venture  to  promise,  if  the  votes  of  the  more  learned  divin  es 
in  our  Church  were  taken  one  by  one,  you  would  scarcely, 
if  even  scarcely,  find  one  in  one  hundred  who  would  not 
laugh  long  at  your  foUies,  or  rather  bitterly  lament  them, 
and  be  indignant  withal,  that  so  gross  Antinomianism  should 
be  thrust  on  the  sons  of  the  Chui'ch  of  England  as  her 
düctrine. 


222  St.  PauVs  Epistles  unfathomable. 


EPILOGUE. 

EPIL.  At  length  then^  by  God's  help,  I  have  despatched  tlie 
Strictiu'es  of  my  Censurer  on  tlie  principal  points  of  my 
Dissertations.  Every  where  have  I  dealt  honestly :  and 
though  I  do  not  deny  that  I  have  passed  over  very  many 
things,  yet  I  can  solemnly  avow,  tliat  I  have  done  so  because 
I  really  thought  them  to  be  of  such  a  nature  as  either  to 
require  no  answer^  or  if  they  did,  to  be  such  as  had  already 
been  ans-wered  in  what  I  had  said  in  other  points^  either  in 
the  Harmony  or  in  this  answer.  I  trust,  however,  that  in 
this  httle  work  I  shall  have  been  so  far  successfid  as  that  this 
book,  -which  a  mahgnant  Censurer  has  loaded  Tvith  so  great 
odium,  will  hereafter  shew  itself  to  be,  in  all  main  points  of 
the  question  at  least,  sound,  Catholic,  and  orthodox,  to  everj'^ 
fair  mind.  But  if  I  have  erred  in  questions  introduced  by 
the  way,  or  in  esplaining  some  of  the  more  difficult  passages 
of  St.  Paul,  (Avhich,  though  I  do  not  remember  to  have  been 
pointed  out  by  my  Censurer,  yet  from  the  dulness  of  my 
intellect,  and  the  abstruse  nature  of  the  subject-matter,  I  can 
easily  suppose,)  I  pray  God  the  Father  of  mercies,  in  Jesus 
Christ  our  propitiation,  that  such  "sveakness  of  mine  be  not 
laid  to  me  as  a  sin,  or  become  harmful  to  others.  I  will  close 
this  discussion  in  the  words  of  a  holy  and  learned  man, 
which  Square  more  suitably  with  my  httleness  :  "  In  St.  Paul's 
Epistles,  there  is  room  for  an  elephant  to  sink :  how  much 
more  a  flea  such  as  myself  ?  ^Tience,  in  passages  like  this,  I 
will  eat  as  rauch  as  I  can  :  M'hat  remaius,  I  will  bui'u  with  fire, 
following  the  exposition  of  the  holy  Catholic  doctors,  and 
contented  with  it.  Eor  no  mortal  man  can  penetrate  the 
depth  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  the  Apostle." 


AN 


APOLOOtY  FOR  THE  HARMONY 

AND   ITS  AÜTHOR, 


IN  ANSWEB  TO  THE 


DECLAMATION  OF  THOMAS  TULLY,  D.D., 

IN  A  WORK  LATELY  PUBLISHED  BY  HIM, 


AND  ENTITLED 


JUSTIFICATIO   PAULINA. 


GEORGE   BULL, 


PRIEST  IN  THE  ANGLICAN  CHURCH, 

AND    AFTERWARDS    LORD    BISHOP    OF    ST.    DAVID'S. 


PREFACE. 

§  1.  Having  read  tlirougli  the  work  of  the  Reverend  T,  P REF. 
Tully,  Doctor  of  Divinit}^  wliich  lie  lias  entitled  "  Justification 
as  taught  by  St.  Paul/^  [Justificatio  Paulina,)  I  confess  I  was 
completely  overcome  with  astonisliment.  It  is  nearly  five 
years  since  I  heard_,  from  persons  whom  I  could  trust,  that 
lie  liad  undertakeu  and  begun  an  auswer  to  tlie  tract  called 
"  Harmonia  Apostolica."  All  of  us  tlierefore  who  had  enter- 
tained  a  faii'  opinion  of  liis  learning,  were  expecting  tliat 
from  sueli  an  antlior^  after  so  long  an  interval,  some  excellent 
werk  would  at  last  come  forth  :  or  (if  the  barren  and  nn- 
fruitful  cause  wbicli  he  had  undertaken  to  defend  would 
hardly  allow  of  this)  something  certainly  wliich  might  carry 
with  it  the  appearance  of  a  fair  and  füll  answer.  Forsooth 
the  lines  of  the  poet  had  occurred  to  us — 

Coulcl  man's  riglit  liand  luwe  in  Troy's  cause  pievailed 
Here  was  a  liand  for  Troy  that  had  not  failed. 

At  any  rate  we  were  expecting  from  the  well-known  kindness 
and  piety  of  the  man  a  candid  and  courteous  answer,  and 
further,  one  which  would  throughout  breathe  a  spirit  of 
sincerity  and  Christian  love. 

§  2.  But  every  thing  has  turned  out  contrary  to  my  ex- 
pectation :  for  not  one  entire  chapter  or  paragraph  has  the 
reverend  gentleman  gone  through  of  a  book  which  he  wished 
to  have  the  credit  of  having  examined  most  accurately,  and 
in  which  he  therefore  expressly  infornis  his  reader  that 
nothing  of  any  moment  had  knowingly  been  passed  over  by 
hira :  the  only  place  in  which  he  appears  to  have  accom- 
plished  any  thing  of  the  kind,  is  in  the  arguinent  concerning 
the  meaning  of  St.  Paul  in  the  scvcnth  chapter  to  the  Romans, 
in  which  he  answers  the  ninth  chapter  of  my  second  Disserta- 
tion.   And  eveu  how  here  he  has  really  accomplished  nothing 

BIM..  ^ 


226  General  char acter  of  Dr.  TuIIy's  ivork. 

PREF.  will  plainly  appear  when  we  come  to  treat  of  that  place,  By 
far  tlie  greatest  number  of  my  ai'guments,  and  tliose  of  the 
greatest  importance^  lie  very  prudeutly  passes  over  in  silence ; 
and  the  answers  which  he  makes  to  the  very  few  he  just 
lightly  touches  upon^  I  had  already  abuudantly  refuted ;  and 
yet  he  agaiu  brings  forward  these  same,  almost  Avithout  any 
additional  support.  He  himself  uses  arguments  to  which  I 
had  given  suificient  satisfaction,  keeping  back  from  his  reader 
in  no  fair  way  my  Solutions  to  them.  He  merely  examines 
the  digi'essions  of  my  work,  and,  as  if  he  were  leaping  about 
on  the  extremities  of  brauches,  he  here  and  tliere  catches  at 
a  few  little  points  hable  to  his  bite.  Lastly,  (and  what  is 
worst  of  allj  he  puts  words  and  opinions  in  my  mouth  just  as 
he  pleaseSj  which  are  no  where  to  be  found  in  my  work,  and 
larvis  of  which  I  never  even  dreamed,  and  with  these  phantoms 
he  strenuously  carries  on  the  battle.  He  also  miserably 
pares  away  and  mutilates  my  words,  which  if  they  were  given 
in  their  füll  sense  would  suffice  for  their  own  acquittal,  and 
tragaedias  thence  he  gets  up  wonderful  pathetic  stories  fastenin g  upon 
me  I  know  not  what  absurdities  and  heresies.  If  the  Doctor's 
strophis  book  tccm  not  on  all  sides  with  such  tricks  as  these,  I  am 
content  to  pass  for  a  greater  liar  than  a  Cretan.  Forsooth 
this  is  his  way  of  thoroughly  refuting  the  '  Harmonist,'  as 
he  calls  him :  by  such  artifices  as  these  (which  ill  become  a 
serious  man,  not  to  say  a  Doctor  of  Di\dnity)  he  gets  up  his 
illustrious  triumph  over  his  adversai'ies. 

§  3.  But  what,  I  ask,  can  you  do  with  a  book  made  up  of 
fine  words  and  empty  pieces  of  rhetoric,  of  tragical  sayings 
in  no  way  belonging  to  the  subject,  of  sophistry,  sarcasms, 
and  (to  speak  the  truth)  such  manifest  calumnies  ?  For  my 
own  part,  I  remained  long  in  doubt  A\hctlier  it  would  not  be 
better  to  Ict  the  book  go  without  any  answer,  until  some 
pious  and  Icarned  fricnds  to  whose  jvidgment  I  owe  much, 
suggcsted  to  me  that  there  was  need  of  some  answer,  lest  in 
any  point  I  might  scem  wanting  to  so  excellent  a  cause,  and 
that  the  book  might  not  become  a  snare  to  the  morc  simple 
and  Icss  educatcd,  and  do  them  injury  by  the  deception  of 
icnocinüs  its  sophistry,  and  its  plausible  language.  They  also  addcd, 
that  one  ought  to  look  to  the  credit  and  reputation  of  our 
most    renowncd    theologians,    and,    further,   of    the    much 


The  Harmonist  not  tfie  only  one  attacked  in  it.         227 

revered  prelates  of  our  Church,  since  it  requires  no  great  pref. 
wisdom  to  see  that  lio"svever  iinimportant  a  person  I  may  be 
myself,  they  are  wounded  tliroiigh  my  sides.  For  tlie  reve- 
rend  gentleman  has  taken  occasion  from  my  book  (whicli  it 
by  no  means  aflforded)  to  complain  openly  and  before  foreign- 
ers  of  the  religion  of  our  forefathers  being  iunovated  on  by 
US,  and  that  too  by  those  m  ho  call  themselves  most  devoted 
sons  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  who  are  now  occupants 
both  of  our  press  and  pulpits :  he  complain s  also  of  noxious 
dogmas  which  are  disseminated  on  all  sides  by  these  same 
men,  and  this  not  only  vriili  impunity,  but  even  (as  he  ^ery 
often  and  plainh^  insinuates)  with  the  favour  and  approbation 
of  their  superiors. 

§  4.  Thus  spurred  on,  I  immediately  took  up  my  pen  to 
apologize  not  so  much  for  the  Harmonist  (whom  I  could 
easily  endure  to  see  despised,  abused,  and  trampled  on  by 
any  one)  as  for  the  Fathers  and  most  learned  theologians  of 
our  Church,  against  whom  the  reverend  gentleman  has  taken 
upon  himself  so  free  a  licence  of  declaiming :  and  at  the 
same  time  to  expose,  candidly,  sincerely,  and  thoroughly,  the 
real  cause  of  all  this  ado.  And  if  any  where  in  this  defence 
I  am  rather  stringent,  as  is  often  the  case,  on  the  Doctor, 
this  must  be  imputed  to  the  indiguity  and  atrocity  of  the 
matter,  which  could  not  be  animadverted  upon  without  satire. 
I  hope,  however,  that  by  the  grace  of  God  I  have  so  mastered 
my  feelings,  although  justly  roused,  that  nothing  has  escaped 
from  my  pen  in  the  warmtli  and  speed  of  writing,  which  may 
seem  to  have  exceeded  the  limits  either  of  the  exact  truth,  or 
(all  things  duly  weighed)  of  Clu-istian  meekness  and  humility, 
or  in  short,  to  use  the  words  of  casuistry,  the  moderation  of 
a  guarded  innocence.  However,  that  the  reader  may  know 
what  to  expect  in  this  answer,  I  may  say  that  I  have  only 
foUowed  the  Doctor,  step  by  step,  up  to  the  end  of  the  fourtli 
chapter ;  since  in  the  four  first  chapters  he  may  have 
appeared  to  some  especially  to  have  triumphed,  and  to  have 
completely  crushed  the  poor  Harmonist,  by  the  authority 
both  of  the  ancient,  our  own,  and  the  rest  of  the  rcformed 
Churches.  And  of  those  points  which  here  and  there  in  the 
other  chapters,  after  liaving  Icugthily  refuted  or  rather 
grumbled  at,  first  Bellarmine  and  then  Baxter,  are  directed 

Q  2 


228  Invidiousness  of  the  title  of  the  book. 

PREF.  by  him  against  the  anthor  of  tlie  Harmony,  one  meets  witli 
hardly  aii}^  thing  of  consequence  wliicli  has  not  been  already 
abundantly  refuted  in  the  Examen.  Wherefore,  not  to  go 
over  old  ground,  I  shall  leave  those  chapters  untouched.  I 
shall  in  the  last  place  examine  with  greater  accuraey  the 
Short  Dissertation  Avhich  he  has  added  on  the  meaning  of 

censor  St.  Paul  in  Rom.  vii.,  on  which  point  our  former  critic  had 
found  no  fault  with  us.  With  these  few  remarks  b}*  way  of 
preface,  let  us  (and  may  it  be  with  good  success)  enter  upon 
our  Apology. 

SECTION  T. 

ON  THE  TITLE  OF  THE  BOOK. 

§  1.  I  begin  with  the  title  of  the  book.  And  here  what 
do  I  hear  ?  "  The  doctrine  of  justification  as  taught  by 
St.  Paul  &c.,  maintained  against  recent  innovators."  An 
odious  expression,  with  which  he  has  taken  care  that  bis 
opponents  should  be  branded  in  the  very  title-page  of  his 
book,  so  that  he  might  by  this  method  gain  the  hatred  of 
those  unacquainted  with  them,  and  might  keep  credulous 
persons,  prejudiced  by  this  imputation,  from  a  true  investi- 
gation  of  the  matter :  he  speaks  in  the  plural  too,  that  all 
may  know  that  this  invective  is  not  directed  against  nie 
alone,  but  that  very  many  others  in  our  Church,  of  the 
same  opinions  as  myself,  are  also  censured.  And  that  there 
might  be  no  doubt  concerning  his  meaning,  he  complains 

p.  5.  loudly  and  mournfully  in  his  Preface,  "  That  the  Church  of 

England,  attacked  on  all  sides,  traduced  in  the  streets,  the 
pulpits,  and  the  press,  seemed  as  it  were  to  be  dragged 
behind  a  triumphal  car ;"  and  in  the  same  place  he  says  that 

p-76.  he  is  speaking  of  what  is  well  known.  He  elsewhere  says 
that  the  truth  which  he  defends  is  not  only  abused  and 
laughed  at  by  Socinians  and  Papists,  but  even  by  those 
"who  perfidiously  serving  the  interest  of  one  or  other  of 
these  parties,  shamelessly  take  to  themselves  the  title  of 
Sons  of  the  Church  of  England ;"  and  he  adds  in  the  same 
passage^  "  that  he  speaks  of  what  is  the  common  therae  every 
where  in  every  pulpit  and  press." 

§  2.  What  foreigner  is  there  who  in  reading  these  words 


Insinuations  against  the  heads  of  our  Church.         229 

would  uot  suppose  that  our  Euglish  Church,  once  the  glory   S  E  C  T. 

of  the  reformed  world,  had  been  transformed  into  the  com- : — 

mou  receptacle  of  Heretics^  Papists,  aud  Socinians,  and  that 
there  had  almost  been  a  total  defection  of  our  diviues  from 
the  faith  and  doctrine  of  the  first  reformers  ? 

A  more  tragical  appeal  than  this  was  never  made  nor 
could  have  been  made  even  by  the  schismatical  author  of 
the  "Apostacy  of  the  Laudians."  Meanwhile,  what  do  the 
prelates  of  oui'  Church?  what,  has  some  stupefaction  come 
over  them,  that  they  take  no  pains,  nay,  no  thought  about 
stopping  this  apostacy  ?  or,  like  those  in  the  parable,  are 
they  so  soundly,  heavily,  and  with  both  ears  asleep,  that 
their  enemies  may  scatter  their  tares  on  all  sides  securely 
and  with  impunity?  In  good  truth  they  are.  Yes,  if  we 
believe  the  Doctor,  so  far  from  opposing  this  growing  evil, 
they  even  lend  it  a  helping  band,  and  so  wish  the  worst  to 
those  few  (amongst  whom  surely  Dr.  Tully  takes  the  lead) 
who  are  zealously  contending  against  it.  What  other  mean- 
ing,  I  ask,  have  these  complaints,  that  the  doctrine  which 
he  is  about  to  defeud  "  is  in  very  ill  repute,"  that  "  the  p.  6. 
fiercest  hatred  was  displayed"  against  its  upholders,  that 
they  must  not  expect  any  other  reward  than  "  sneers,  hatred, 
and  reproach?^^  ^^'ay,  when  about  to  publish  his  work,  he 
imagined  terrible  "  lions  in  his  way,"  to  whose  awfulness  ibid. 
nothing  was  equal,  save  "  the  terror  of  the  Lord,  who  in  His 
o>m  good  time  will  confess  those  that  coufess  Hirn,  before 
His  Father  and  His  holy  angels,  and  ^vill  deny  those  that 
deny  Him.'^  Any  one  unacquainted  with  our  affairs  would 
suppose  that  the  Marian  age  was  come  again  in  England, 
in  which  freely  to  confess  necessary  truth  was  to  earn  the 
praise  of  a  confessor,  and  even  to  aflFect  the  crown  of  martyr- 
dom.  ün  the  other  band,  Dr.  Tully  would  not  have  his 
reader  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  those  who  refuse  to  take  up 
with  himself  the  arms  of  civil  war  against  the  Harmonists 
and  the  other  Innovators,  pull  too  much  with  the  stream, 
and  that  the  Harmonist  and  his  associates  are  acting  a  part. 

§  3.  But  whence  this  clamour  ?  whence  these  vociferations 
about  the  reformed  religion  of  oiu'  ancestors  being  innovated 
on  by  US,  with  which  both  our  own  ears  aud  those  of 
foreigners  ring  again?      1  will  cxplaiu  in  few  words ;  1  will 


230  Charge  of  Innovation  ewplained  and  refuted. 

SECT.  give  the  reason  candidly,  and,  as  tlie  snbject  reqnires,  freely. 
: In  tliis  controversy  about  justification,  we  are  Innovators,  in 


the  eyes  of  Dr.  Tully  and  his  friends,  because  we  will  not 
have  thrust  upon  us  tliose  empty  and  inexplicable  sLifts  and 
subtleties  (to  say  no  worse  of  tliem)  with  Avliich  they  them- 
selves  bave  interpolated  tlie  eleventh  article  of  our  Cliurch, 
wliilst  at  tlie  same  time  we  beartily  embrace  that  very  sense 
of  the  article  which  alone  our  Church  openly  professed  to 
have  intended.  Next,  we  are  innovators  because  we  prefer 
the  consent  of  aU  antiquity  to  the  single  opinion  of  Calvin. 
We  are  innovators  because  we  do  not  give  the  same  place 
and  respect  to  the  canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dordt  as  we  do 
to  the  decrees  of  general  Councils,  received  in  the  whole 
Christian  world,  of  which  canons  (of  Dordt)  some  of  the 
most  eminent  prelates  of  our  Church  long  ago  freely  and 
openly  warned  us^  that  they  never  had  been  approved  or  re- 
ceived in  England  by  any  public  consent  of  the  Church,  and 
tliat  they  never  ought  to  be :  iuasmuch  as  some  of  them  are 
plainly  repugnant  to  the  clear  definitions  as  well  of  our  own 
vid.  iiif.      Church    as    to    thosc    of    other    great   reformed    Churches : 

SL-Ct     7  . 

whence  it  follows  that  even  before  they  wcrc  originated  in 
that  Synod,  they  had  been  condemned  and  rejected  under 
the  name  of  the  Lambcth  Articles,  by  Queen  Elizabeth  of 
glorious  memory,  and  by  those  well-tried  men,  as  the  same 
prelates  affirmcd,  who  had  been  her  counsellors  in  matters 
of  religion.  We  are  innovators  because  we  are  unwilling 
that  that  System  of  thcology  (whicli  has  been  patchcd  up 
by  new  teachers,  and  those  foreigners  too,  who  were  by  no 
means  favourable  either  to  the  doctrine  or  discipline  of  our 
Church)  should  any  louger  have  such  a  hold  in  our  schools 
and  Universities,  that  one  is  not  pcrmittcd  cven  to  hint  or 
whisper  any  thing  against  its  definitions,  theorics,  or  con- 
clusions;  and  that  students  in  divinity  should  be  taught 
that  the  basis  of  their  studics  was  to  be  founded  on  it :  and 
because  we  lay  down  that  the  writiugs  of  the  ancient  doctors 
approved  by  the  Catholic  Church,  and  specially  of  those  Avho 
lived  nearcr  to  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  should  be  diligently 
read,  and  received  with  proper  reverence,  by  all.     Lastly,  we 

'  See  an  Epistlc  of  the  Bisliops,  in       Buckingham  ;  Ileylin,  Cypr.  Anglican., 
the  case  of  Montague,  to  the  Duke  of      p.  lo7. 


Church  of  England  Calhülk  in  doctrine  and  polity.     231 

arc  iimovators  (for  a  stränge  rcasoii  iiulcod  !)  bccanso,  aftcr  s  E  C  T. 

thc   Sacrcd  Scriptnrcs,  wc  regard  and  rcvcrcnco  carly  and : — 

pure  antiquity,  and  advisc  otlicrs  to  loUow  its  nnanimous 
judgnicnt  wlicrevcr  it  can  be  iound,  (as  it  eertainly  can  he  in 
all  points  of  grcatcr  moment,)  uhilst  in  otlier  points  cacli 
man's  opiniou  should  be  Icft  free,  so  he  disturb  not  Chris- 
tian chai'ity  and  the  Chureh,  since  we  ai'e  persuadcd  tliat 
this  is  tlic  best,  nay,  that  tliis  is  thc  oiily  M'ay  of  putting  an 
end  to  thc  nidiappy  controvcrsies  which  at  thc  prcscnt  day 
have  rent  thc  Chureh  of  Cln-ist  into  so  niany  parties. 

§  4.  This  is  their  intention,  this  their  fault  whom  tliis 
Doctor  of  Divinity  has  been  plcased  to  stigniatize  Avith  the 
invidious  name  of  Innovators.  A  fcw  words  will  sulHcc  to 
shew  how  nnworthy  of  a  true  son  of  thc  Church  of  England 
is  it  to  brand  any  onc  uith  this  rcproach  on  such  grounds. 
Every  oiie  wlio  is  not  a  merc  novice  in  the  history  of  our 
Church,  niust  know  that  our  Kefornuition  Avas  in  all  respccts 
conformed  to  thc  exaniplc  of  the  ancicnt  Church  Catholic, 
that  is,  so  far  as  it  Avas  possiblc,  and  the  age  Avould  alloAV : 
licncc  thc  Order  of  Bisliops  Avas  rctained  in  England,  that 
ncAV  form  of  ecclcsiastical  govcrnmcnt  being  rcjcctcd  Avhich 
by  the  advice  of  Calvin  had  bcen  establishcd  in  neighbour- 
ing  Churelics.  ITcnce  fornis  of  public  praycr,  ritos,  and 
cercmonics,  all  of  thcm  most  ancicnt,  have  bccn  rcligiously 
observed  amongst  us.  Ilence  certain  ancient  doctrines, 
althongh  grcatly  at  variaucc  Avith  Calviu's  tencts,  such  as 
universal  propitiation  throngh  Christ  our  Savionr,  defcctibility 
of  justifying  faith  (of  Avhich  hercaftcr),  of  the  eternal  salva- 
tion  of  all  infants  born  of  Christian  parents,  and  scalcd  by 
Holy  Baptism,  Avho  niay  afterwards  die  Avlthout  having  com- 
mitted  actual  sin,  all  these  have  bccn  fixed  and  establishcd 
amongst  us:  so  that  even  from  the  original  Constitution  of  our 
rcformcd  Church,  her  sons  may  Icarn  how  niueh  dcfercnce 
they  ought  to  pay  to  the  judguieut  of  the  ancicnt  Catholic 
Church.  Ilcnce  too  that  Canon*"  concerning  prcachers,  (which 
has  bccn  pointcd  out  in  thc  l^xaincn,)  alnu)st  in  the  carliest 
times  of  our  llcforniation,  naniely,  in  thc  ycar  1571,  Avas 
sanctioncd  by  thc  consent  of  a  füll  provincial  Synod,  and 
aftcrwards  ratitied  by  thc  royal  authority  of  Queen  l'ilizabcth : 

"  Collect,  ("aiioii.  Lond.  ciüt.  1H71.  p.  2^8.  (p.  1!).) 


232    Study  of  the  Fathers  i^c.  ordered  by  Jauits  the  First. 

S  E  C  T.  "  And  above  all^  the}-  shall  take  care  tliat  they  preacli  notliiug 

- — '- — -  to  be  religiously  lield  and   believed   by  the  people,  except 

that  which  is  agreea1)le  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  and  New 

Testament^    and  which   the   Cathohc  Fathers  and   Ancient 

Bishops  have  collected  from  that  very  doctrine/^ 

Hence  amongst  the  rules  and  directions  which,  by  the 
advice  of  the  Bishops,  the  wise  King  James  the  successor  of 
Ehzabeth  recommended  to  the  special  care  of  the  Yice- 
Chancellor,  the  Heads  of  Colleges  and  Halls,  the  two  Pro- 
fessors, and  the  two  Proctors  in  the  University  of  Oxford, 
(when  the  Puritanical  faction  was  more  than  usually  strong 
there,)  the  foUowing  direction  was  inscribed :  it  is  the  seventh 
in  order'^.  *'That  young  Students  in  DiWnity  be  directed 
to  study  such  books  as  be  most  agreeable  in  doctrine  and 
discipline  to  the  Church  of  England,  and  excited  to  bestow 
their  times  in  the  Fathers,  Councils,  Sclioolmen,  Historie» 
and  controversies,  and  not  to  insist  too  long  upon  Compen- 
diums  and  Abreviatui'es,  making  them  the  grounds  of  their 
study  in  Divinity."  If  this  most  prudent  advice  had  come 
into  the  Doctor's  mind,  he  never  would  have  put  before  the 
youth  of  our  University  (and  unless  I  am  much  mistaken 
without  a  precedent)  Ins  Enchii'idion  of  theological  teaching, 
corresponding  more  nearly,  as  will  be  shewu  in  its  proper 
place,  to  the  tenets  of  Cahin,  than  to  the  doctrines  of  our 
own  or  the  ancient  Church. 

§  5.  Hence  the  most  eminent  theologians  of  our  Church 
have  constantly  and  openly  declared  that  they  entirely  em- 
braced  the  consent  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  and  that  they 
would  never  admit  any  thing,  either  in  doctrine  or  ecclesiasti- 
cal  government,  which  was  contrary  to  it.  So  the  learned 
Sara\ia^  whom  we  justly  number  amongst  our  divines,  in  the 
Preface  to  his  Defence  against  Beza,  says  :  "  No  innovations 
may  be  made  contrary  to  the  unanimous  and  constant  con- 
sent of  all  the  Fathers  of  the  ancient  Church,  without  the 
express  coramand  of  God.  For  this  I  freely  declare  :  whoso- 
ever  takes  away  all  authority  from  the  Fathers,  leaves  none 
cap.  7.  for  himself."  And  again  in  the  same  Defence  :  "  This,  Beza, 
''■  ■  and  as  many  as  think  with  him,  dcny :  and  yet  the  Fathers 
understood  it   otherwise :   to  Avhose  unanimous  voicc,   God 

"  Vid.  Heylin,  Cypr.  Anglic,  p.  71,  72. 


Their  teachiny  received  hij  the  best  Anylican  divines.     233 

forbid  that  I  should  prefer  the  judgment  of  Beza,  Calvin,  or  SECT. 

auy  of  ttie  new  teachers,  and  should  consider  that  they  were  '- 

wise  but  the  Fathers  not."  So  the  great  Jewel  in  his  Apology 
says  :  "  We  have  approached  as  near  as  ever  we  could  to  the 
Church  of  the  Apostles  and  ancient  Catholic  Bishops  &c. :  and 
haA^e  not  only  modelled  our  doctrine  but  also  the  sacraments 
and  form  of  public  prayer  after  their  rites  and  customs." 

In  like  manner,  the  learned  Bilson  against  the  Puritans.  Deperpet. 
"  Be  not  imfair,"  he  says ;  "  we  refuse  none  of  tliose  things  j^       ' 
which   the   primitive    and    ancient    Church    of   Christ    ever  ^^-  [p- 

.  .  409.1 

generally  approved  and  adopted,  as  contained  either  openly 
or  by  implication  in  the  Scriptures.     No,  this  is  your  cus-  tacite 
tom."     So  also  the  great  Casaubon,  acting  as  Interpreter  Epist.  ad 
for  our  King  and  Church  :  "  Our  King,"  he  says,  "  together  20^°"  ^ 
with  the  Church  of  England,  declares  that  he  acknowledges 
that  doctrine  to  be  both  true  and  necessary,  which,  flowing 
as  in  a  Channel  from  the  fountain  of  holy  writ,  has  come 
down  to  these  times  by  means  of  the  consent  of  the  ancient 
Church."     Elsewhere  he  says,  '^Unless  I  am  much  mistaken,  Epist.  709. 
the  most  wholesome  part  of  the  Reformation  is  in  England,  ^^}'^^^1\ 

^  °  ^  ad  Cl.  Sal- 

where,  together  with  the  love  of  truth,  there  flourishes  the  mas. 
love  of  antiquity." 

But  with  much  earnestness,  as  is  his  custom,  the  learned 
Montague  in  his  Origines,  writes,  "  Our  new  theologians 
who  have  lately  come  upon  us,  who  perhaps  are  foolish, 
certaiuly  are  young,  acknowledge  this  agreement  and  (ruf^p-n/xia- 
consent  of  all  antiquity.  But  they  are  not  moved  by  '"^'' 
tradition.  Much  deference,  say  they,  is  to  be  paid  to  the 
veneration  of  ancient  Churches  and  holy  Fathers.  All  this 
is  well.  But  why  listen  to  their  words  when  I  see  their 
actions  ?  When  I  see  the  hoar  hairs  of  antiquity  not  merely 
hooted  at  but  assailed  by  mere  boys,  and  men  of  no  estate, 
wiseacres  that  think  themselves  wits  ?  '  But  we  must  obey 
God  rather  than  men.'  Very  good,  in  case  God  commands 
one  thing,  and  man  another.  But  that  is  the  question  :  they 
should  prove,  and  not  give  sentence.  Nay,  there  is  no  ques- 
tion. We  hold  firmly,  against  the  whole  faction  of  Innovators, 
that  from  God,  from  God's  word,  mind,  and  will,  the  ancients 
did  never  depart.  They  say  they  did.  Pooh !  what  is  the 
authority  of  thesc  innovators,  that  Avhen  they  say  so  and 


234      Catholic  teaching  atone  followed  in  tlie  Harmony. 

s  E  c  T.  others  deny  it^  we  slioidd  agree  "witli  tliese  ratlier  than  with 

'- tliose  ?    When  ever  did  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  go  from  the 

Church,  to  speak  to  those  who  stood  against  the  Church  ?" 
With  him  agrees  his  most  revereud  successor  in  the  See  of 
Concio  ad  Nor^yich,  Joseph  Hall.  '^  Surely/^  he  says,  "  whosoever 
1623.  willingly  subscribes  to  the  word  of  God,  sealed  in  the  ever- 
lastiug  mouuments  of  Scripture,  to  all  the  ancient  Creeds,  to 
the  four  general  Councils^  to  the  common  consent  of  the 
Fathers  for  six  hundred  j^ears  after  Christ :  (which  we  of  the 
reformed  Chm'ch  religiously  profess  to  do :)  if  he  may  err  in 
small  pointSj  yet  he  cannot  be  an  heretic."  Let  our  great 
Hammond  close  the  hst  of  authorities"^.  "The  Church  of 
England,"  he  says,  "oifers  herseif  to  the  whole  Christian 
World  to  be  recognized  by  this  mark,  and  by  this  to  be  justly 
estimated  by  posterity,  namely,  that  in  decidiug  on  contro- 
versies  of  faith  or  practice  she  has  always  kept  this  point  fixed 
and  established,  (and  upon  this  basis  she  wished  the  British 
Reformation  to  rest,)  that  the  first  authority  should  be  given 
to  the  Scriptures,  and,  after  them,  the  second  to  the  Bishops, 
Mailyrs,  and  ecclesiastical  Avriters  of  the  first  ages." 

From  all  these  passages  it  is  clear  (if  indeed  we  must  stand 
by  the  judgment  of  the  greatest  di\ines  in  our  Church,  and 
even  of  the  Church  itself)  who  they  are  who  are  to  be 
accoiinted  as  really  innovators,  those  namely  who  forge 
doctrines  differing  from  the  consent  of  our  ancient  Bishops, 
or  who  set  to  work  to  alter  that  form  of  goAernment  which 
has  been  every  where  received  in  the  Catholic  Church. 

§  6.  Here  then  I  take  my  stand :  Let  Dr.  Tully,  when  he 
has  scarched  tlirough  my  Harmony  from  beginning  to  end, 
bring  forward  one  single  proposition  which  I  have  defended 
that  is  at  variance  with  the  decrees  of  the  ancient  Catholic 
Church,  and  I  will  instantly  give  mysclf  up  to  him  as  con- 
quercd ;  without  a  moment's  dclay  I  will  confess  that  he  has 
most  justly  branded  me  with  the  name  and  infamy  of  an 
Innovator,  nor  will  I  refuse  opcnly  and  publicly  to  retract  ray 
error  or  heresy,  whichcvcr  it  be,  and  to  sign  my  recantation 
before  the  wholc  Christian  world :  and  I  will  thcn  pay  the 
penalty  of  rashness  and  heterodoxy  (as  they  say  Sulpitius  did*^) 

^  Dissert.    contra   ßlonclel.    proa-ni.  '   Geniiacl.  in  Calalog.  V'ii-.  lUust. 

cap.  14.  sect.  13.  [p.  50.] 


They  luho  oppose  it  oppose  Hohj  Scripture.  235 

by  the   everlasting   silence  of  my  pen  and   tongue.     God  SECT. 

knows  the  secrets  of  my  heart :  I  am  so  averse  to  any  itcliing ^ — _ 

desire  for  Innovation  in  tlieological  doctrines,  (liowever  the 
Doctor  of  Divinity,  usuvjiing  the  tribunal  of  the  Supreme 
Judge  of  all,  may  confidently  impute  it  to  me,)  that  Avhatever  Just.  Paul. 
has  been  approved  of  by  the  consent  of  Catholic  Fathers  ^'  ^"^^^ 
and  Ancient  Bisliops,  even  though  my  poor  intellect  cannot 
see  it,  yet  I  embrace  with  all  reverence :  in  truth,  when  as  a 
young  man  I  was  writing  the  Harmony,  I  leai'nt  from  no 
small  experience,  (which  now  in  more  matvu'ed  age  I  am 
most  jjersuaded  of,)  that  no  one  can  oppose  Catholic  consent 
without  bis  being  in  the  end  foimd  to  have  opposed  both 
the  Di^-ine  oracles  and  sound  reason,  however  mnch  some 
passages  in  Holy  ^Yrit,  imperfectly  understood,  and  the 
appearances  of  shallow  reasonings,  may  seem  for  a  time  to 
favour  bis  cause.  Daily  with  sighs  and  groans  do  I  bewail 
that  unbridled  liceuce  of  preaching,  which  in  otir  England 
(though  not  in  oiu'  Chnrch  of  England,  as  Dr.  Tully  com- 
plains)  has  been  permitted  for  some  years  past  from  dire 
necessity,  as  it  has  been  thought.  But  in  a  word,  my  sin- 
cere  wish  is,  that  the  ancient  customs  and  doctrines  may  pre- 
vail,  TO.  äp-)(cua,  ed-q,  hö'yjxara,  KpareiTco  :  nor  do  I  abominate 
certain  tenets  of  Dr.  Tully  fi-om  any  other  reason,  more  than 
that  I  am  convinced  they  are  thoronghly  opposed  to  the 
uuanimous  opiniou  of  the  ancient  Fathers. 

§  7.  But  since  the  Doctor  is  not  ashamed,  throughout  bis 
invective,  to  throw  out  against  the  supposed  Innovators  those 
populär  reproaches  of  Popery  and  Socinianism,  (which  after 
all  are  not  very  consistent,  or  likely  to  be  found  together,)  I 
have  thought  it  advisable  to  meet  severally  these  two  charges 
once  for  all.  With  regai'd  to  Popery,  he  calls  us  "livals  of  the  p.  -i. 
Papists,  flatterers  of  the  Jesuits,  and  that  perfidiously  serving  p.  8. 
their  interests,  we  shamelessly  take  to  ourselves  the  title  of 
Sons  of  the  Church  of  England."     In   short,  through  the  p-  76. 
whole  of  bis  eleventh  chapter  hc  is   aiming  at  this    alone, 
namely,  to  persuade  bis  reader  that  our  view  of  justification 
is  not  a  finger's  breadth  diflerent  from  that  of  the  Papists, 
and  even  from  those  wlio  maintain  the  mcrit  of  works  in  the 
matter  of  justification.     But  that  you  may  pcrceive  the  füll 
venom  of  his  malignant  and  exasperatcd  mind,  listen  to  bis 


236  Charge  of  Popery  disclaimed  and  refuted, 

S  E  C  T.  own  words,     "  Nor  iudeed  are  either  the  Papists  wont  to 

'- deny  this,  uor  tliose  adversaries  who,  as  yet.  Lad  rather  be 

known  uuder  another  name."  Wlio  tliese  are^  difFering  only 
in  name  from  the  Papists,  will  be  too  piain  to  every  one  who 
reads  Ins  book,  namely,  not  only  bis  detested  Harmonist, 
but  very  many  of  our  dinnes  occupying  (and  we  bave  the 
Doctor's  word  for  it)  our  churches,  pulpits,  and  press^  with 
■whom  he  (the  Harmonist)  agrees.  How  atrociously  does  he 
calumniate  all  these  by  that  single  expression  "  as  yet,"  so 
well  do  those  somewhat  skilled  in  forging  calumnies  know 
how  to  blast  the  fame  of  others  even  by  a  word.  As  if 
forsüoth,  those  di^ines^  Avho,  np  to  this  time,  have  been 
pleased  to  bear  the  name,  and  only  the  name  of  reformed,  as 
soon  as  a  convenient  opportunity  shall  offer  itself,  were  ready 
both  to  lay  aside  the  name,  and  openly  to  pass  over  to  the 
ranks  of  the  Papists.  But  I  beseech  all  who  care  for  truth, 
piety,  candour,  and  peace,  that  they  do  not  beheve  the 
Doctor  quite  so  easily.  Let  foreigners  know  (for  no  one  at 
home,  save  a  mere  fanatic,  wouid  listen  to  these  shameless 
charges)  that  there  are  and  always  have  been  amongst  these 
di^ines  whom  Dr.  Tully  esteems  as  Innovators,  very  many, 
who,  in  their  most  excellent  published  works,  have  strenu- 
ously  and  most  snccessfnlly  impugned  papistical  errors,  nor 
have  any  triumphed  more  gloriously  in  this  cause  than  some 
of  these.  I  forbear  from  gi^iug  their  names,  that  I  may  not 
hurt  the  modesty  of  as  many  as  are  still  amongst  us,  or  incur 
the  iU-will  of  others.  Nevertheless  the  champions  of  the 
Papal  cause  know  and  feel  that  what  I  say  is  true,  to  their 
cost.  AD  who  are  good  men,  and  fair  judges  of  the  matter, 
congratulate  us,  uor  will  a  grateful  and  equitable  posterity 
cease  to  acknowledge  it.  As  far  as  I  myself  am  coucerned, 
who  am  the  least  of  those  di\ines  who  have  been  accounted 
worthy  to  suffer  reproach  for  the  free  assertion  of  the  Catholic 
Faith,  and  true  doctrine  of  our  Church,  which  we  have  freely 
asserted  against  certain  new  dogmas,  with  the  assistance  of 
the  Lord  I  had  rather  die  a  hundred  times  than  embrace 
the  Creed  propoundcd  in  the  Council,  or  rather  couspiracy, 
of  Trent.  Whatever  K-omish  errors  the  Church  of  England 
has  condcmned  either  in  her  Articles  or  elsewhere,  (I  say  not 
this  at  random,  but  advisedly,)  the  same  do  I  equally  con- 


as  also  that  of  Socinianism.  237 

demn.     As  far  as  I  liave  been   able   I   have  anxiously  en-   s  E  C  T. 

deavoured  to  vrarn  in  time  the  more  incautious  of  that  small -i 

portion  of  the  flock  of  Christ  committed  to  my  care,  against 
the  snares  which  the  Romish  emissaries  have  here  and  there 
craftily  laid  for  our  people,  and  eveu  now  do  not  cease  to  lav 
theni.  And  I  thank  Almighty  God  that  He  has  been  pleased 
to  make  use  of  me,  sinner  that  I  ani^  as  an  Instrument  in 
extrieating  the  souls  of  some  from  the  depths  and  abysses  of 
popish  errors  and  superstitions.  But  what  avails  it  to  dwell 
longer  on  these  points  ?  Snrely  no  sensible  man  would  care 
for  being  thought  a  Papist  by  our  Doctor,  who  ridicules  and 
eries  down  the  author  of  the  Harmony  as  one  who  "lays  his 
foundation  in  Rome/^  raerely  because  he  teaches  "  that  true  Just.  Paul, 
coutrition  necessarily  precedes  the  justincation  of  man/'  and  ^' 
affirms  this  to  have  been  always  the  doctrine  of  the  ancient 
Pi'otestants.  Forsooth  in  this  controversy  all  are  Papists  in 
his  eyes  who  are  not  Antinomians. 

§  8.  Next,  as  regards  Socinianism ;  I  have  solemnly  de- 
clared  again  and  again  in  my  Examen  that  I  altogether 
abhor  that  most  destructive  heresy.  But  the  reiterated 
calumny  of  the  Doctor  compels  me  to  explain  my  belief  more 
at  large,  as  it  is  opposed  to  the  tenets  of  this  most  unhappy 
heresiarch.  FLrst  then,  there  are  two  points  in  Theology  in 
which  it  is  but  too  piain  that  Socinus,  to  the  great  dauger  of 
himself  and  followers,  has  most  widely  departed  from  the 
path  of  Catholic  doctrine,  the  one  relating  to  the  Person  of 
Christ  our  Savioui",  the  other  to  the  benefits  we  obtain  by 
Him.  Concerning  the  former,  the  wretched  dogmatist  teaches 
that  Christ,  whatsoever  be  His  greatness,  in  His  o'^vn  nature 
was  a  mere  man  saving  His  conception  in  the  womb  of  iNIary  <\ii\})v  ikv- 
by  the  ineflFable  overshadowing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  without  ^'^^"^ 
any  iutercourse  of  man:  that  accordingly  before  Hewasborn 
of  the  most  blessed  Virgin,  He  did  not  exist  at  all,  which 
blasphemy  I  think  deserWng  every  kind  of  execration, 
Tliat  there  is  in  Chi'ist,  besides  His  human  nature,  a 
divine  nature,  in  which  not  only  before  Mary,  but  be- 
begotten  of  God  His  Father  before  all  worlds,  he  had. 
existed  togetlier  with  Him  as  His  own  True  Son;  and  in 
which,  by  the  will  of  His  Father,  He  was  the  Creator  ofsT/M'oup- 
this   Universe,   that   is,    of   heaven   and   earth    and   of  all  "^ 


238  Divinity  of  our  Lord  denied  by  Socinns, 

s  E  C  T.  that  is  tlierein,   as  Avell  of  tliings  invisible  as  visible, — all 

this^  botli  the  sacred  oracles  so  often  and  so  clearly  declare, 

and  it  lias  been  always  so  unanimously  believed  of  the 
Catholic  Churcli  from  the  very  time  of  the  Apostles,  that  I 
receive  this  article  of  the  DiAinity  of  our  Saviour  with  the 
same  degree  of  assent  as  I  do  Christianity  itself,  that  is, 
(praise  be  to  God)  with  the  greatest.  And  that  it  may 
appear  how  enth'ely  I  abhor  not  only  that  of  the  Sociuians, 
but  every  other  heresy,  and  so  am  altogether  a  Catholic ;  I 
most  heartily  subscribe  (God  is  my  witness)  to  the  Nicene 
Creed,  wliich  is,  "In  One  God  the  Father  Almighty,  &c.,  and 
in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the  ouly  begotten  Son  of  God, 
begotten  of  His  Father  before  all  worlds,  God  of  God,  Light 
of  Light,  very  God  of  very  God,  begotten,  not  made,  being 
of  one  substance  with  the  Father,  by  Whom  all  things  were 
made,  Who  for  us  men  and  for  our  salvatiou,  came  down 
from  heaven  and  was  incarnate,^^  &c. 

Moreover  some  years  ago  I  drew  out  certain  historico- 

ecclesiastical  positions  concerning  the  Divinity  of  the  Son, 

in  which  I  trust  that  I  clearly  shewed  the  agreement  of  the 

Ante-Nicene  Fathers  with  the  Nicene,  as  well  concerning 

Th  oixooi-   the    "one    substance"    as    "the    co-eternity"    of   the    Son, 

rh  ffvydt-   the   tradition  haA'ing  been  derived  from  the  very  time  of 

5'°"  the   Apostles,    as    opposed   to    Petavius    and   others.       But 

owiug  to  ill  health  and  the  daily  pressure  of  other  cares 

and  busin  ess,  it  has  not  as  yet  been  in  my  power  to  put 

togcther  my  scattered  sheets,  and  to  finish   my  imperfect 

work. 

§  9.  Concerning  the  bencfits  we  enjoy  through  our  Savi- 
our, Socinns*^  denies  that  Christ  has  made  satisfaction,  or  paid 
the  penalty  for  our  sins,  or  that  He  has  undcrgone  death  in 
our  stead.     I,  ou  the  other  hand,  belicve  that  it  is  perfectly 

'  Socin.  Disput,  de  Jesu  Cliristo  is  nothing  eise  than  to  die  through  the 
Servat.  par.  ii.  cap.  7.  "  I  deny  that  cause  or  occasion  of  his  sins.  But  he 
Christ  lias  paid  any  thing  for  us  to  tlie  certainly  dies  through  the  cause  or 
Divine  Justice."  Andagain:  "1  confess  occasion  of  any's  sins,  who  dies  in 
that  Jesus  Christ  died  on  account  of  order  that  a  man  be  brought  back  from 
our  iniquities  and  for  our  sins  :  but  his  sins,  and  that  it  be  made  sure  to 
yet  I  firnily  deny  that  it  follows  from  him  that  liis  sins  will  be  forgiven  him, 
that,  that  (Christ  Himself  salislicd  the  it  hc  shall  depart  from  thcm.and  more- 
Divine  Justice  in  any  scnse  for  our  sins,  ovcr  tliat  he  should  really  fcel  and  ob- 
er i)aid  tliat  to  it  which  we  ought  to  have  tain  the  fruit  of  the  same  pardon  and 
paid  on  account  of  our  sins.  For  to  so  tlie  pardon  itself.  But,  tliat  all  tliis 
die  on  account  of  or  for  any  man's  sins,  might  happcn  unto  us,  Christ  died." 


as  also  the  Satisfaction  of  His  Death.  239 

clear^  from  innumerable  and  most  explicit  passages  of  Holy   SECT. 

Writ,  that   Christ  has  not  only  clied  for  our  good,   (wliich '- — 

indeed  the  Heresiarch  confesses,  and  which  is  true  of  any  mar- 
tyr^)  but  that  He  died  also  in  our  stead ;  that  is,  (to  avoid  any 
ambiguity  of  expression,)  unless  Christ  had  died,  we,  aecording 
to  the  Divine  decree  made  against  us,  must  necessarily  have 
died :  and  since  Christ  has  died,  we  shall  not  necessarily  die 
eternally.  But  this  being  granted,  namely,  that  had  it  not 
been  for  the  death  of  Christ  we  must  have  died,  then  the  So- 
lution or  satisfaction  is  straightway  obtained  from  the  natura 
of  the  case  itself  (as  the  greatest  \dndicator&  of  the  Catholic 
Faith  on  this  point  has  most  excellently  observed),  For 
either  we  should  have  been  punished  with  death  justly  or 
unjustly :  not  unjustly,  for  we  had  deserved  death,  therefore 
justly — and  if  so,  Ave  were  debtors  uuto  death;  from  this 
debt  Christ  has  ft'ced  us  by  giving  something.  But  to  give 
something  so  that  another  may  be  freed  by  that  from  debt, 
is  to  pay,  or  give  satisfaction,  Socinus'^  rigidly  denies  that 
Christ  by  the  sacrifice  of  His  Cross  merited  that  God  would 
grant  us  remission  of  our  sins.  Yea,  he  denies  ''  that  God  Hb.  i. 
on  account  of  the  outpouring  blood  of  Christ  promised  us  ^"''" 
any  thing.^'  Forsooth,  this  is  his  constant  teaching,  that 
Christ  died  not  for  this,  that  He  might  obtain  any  promise 
for  US  from  God,  but  only  that  He  might  assure  us  of  the 
truth  of  the  promises  made  by  God,  as  if  spontaneously  and 
without  any  intervening  propitiation.  But  I  most  firmly 
believe  that  Christ  our  Saviour  as  the  true  Son  of  God  the 
Fatlier,  and  greatly  beloved  by  Him,  by  that  stupendous 
emptying  Himself  of  His  glory  in  the  assumption  oi  Ktuüiats 
human  nature,  and  His  death  on  the  cross,  obtained  from 
God  His  Father,  or  worthily  merited  for  us,  that  God  would 
grant  us  those  great  gifts  promised  to  us  in  the   Gospel 

g  Grot.  de  Satisfac.  ix.  p.  177.  edit.  dying  He  paid  to  the  Divine  Justice  all 

Oxon.  l()3ß.  the  penalties  due  to  our  iiiiijuities,  or 

''  The  same  in  eh.  26  of  the  same  that  by  giving-  His  blood  as  the  price  of 
book:  "  Not  only  is  the  word  satisfac-  our  redeuiption  Ile  has  delivered  us  out 
tton  or  satisfying  no  where  found  in  of  the  hands  of  Divine  Justice  :  or  that 
Holy  Scripture  where  it  is  treating  of  by  His  own  obedience  He  compensated 
the  salvation  obtained  for  us  by  Clirist,  for  our  criines ;  or  that  He  wortiiily 
as  von  yourself  confess,  but  nothing  of  merited  that  God  would  grant  us  re- 
ihe kiiid  is  even  onee  found  expressly  niission  of  our  sins :  or  at  least,  lastly, 
writtcn.  Such  as,  that  Christ  by  His  that  He  has  in  any  way  appeased  the 
death  reconciled  God  to  us  ;  or  that  by  angcr  of  God  for  us." 


240 


Other  pernicious  opinions  disciaimed, 


irpoKo/r- 
apKTiKr] 
&e6irvev- 


SECT.  covenant,  naraely,  remissiou  of  sins,  eternal  life,  and,  wliat 

__i^ is  necessary  for  the  obtaiuing  both  those  benefits,  the  gift 

of  the  Holy  Spirit,  rnider  the  conditions  laid  down  in  that 
same    covenant :     and    accordingly,    that    the    whole    most 
gracious    covenant    of    the    Gospel    enth'ely   rests,    and    is 
foimded  npou  the  obedience  of  Christ,  of  which  His  death  and 
oblation  of  Himself  on  the  cross  were  the  completion,  as  its 
sole   primary  meritorious    cause.     The    whole    of  this   that 
Apostohcal    and    almost   inspired   writer   Clement,  has    ex- 
pressed in  a  very  few  words  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans,  (which  passage  I  have  often  quoted  in  roy  Examen,  and 
as  often  repeat,  because  I  wish,  as  it  were,  to  inculcate  in 
the  mind  of  the  reader  the  true  and  real  meaning  of  the 
satisfaction  of  Christ  so  clearly  explained  in  it,)  where  he 
charges  the  believers    that  they  should    seriously  consider, 
"  How  precious  was  the  Blood  of  Christ  in  the  sight  of  God, 
which  being  poured  out  for  our  salvation,  obtained  the  grace 
of  repentance  for  the  whole  world."     Which  words  have  this 
piain  meaning;  Of  such  value  and  so  well  pleasing  to  God 
the   Father,  was   the   obedience  of  His    Son,  even   to   the 
death  of  the  cross,  (for  indeed  it  was  composed  of  ineffable 
love  to  man,  together  with  Submission  to  God  His  Father : 
and  moreover  by  that  dispensation  the  glory  of  the  Divine 
attribiites,  justice  and  mercy,  shone  forth  in   a  wonderful, 
yea,  a  stupendous  manner,)  that  for  His   sake  He   madc  a 
most  gracious  covenant  with  the  whole  human  race,  which 
was  involved  in  the  guilt  of  sin  and  under  His  wrath,  and 
which  He  might  justly  have  altogether  destroyed  with  the 
apostate  angels ;  by  which  covenant  He  undertook  to  give  to 
all  the  remission  of  sins,  and  so  eternal  life  under  the  con- 
dition  of  repentance,  which  comprehends  the  whole  duty  of 
fallen  and  sinful  man  returning  to  God.     This  is  the  true 
Apostolic  and  Catholic  doctrine  concerning  the  satisfaction 
of  Christ,  thoroughly  opposed   to  the   tenets   of   Socinus, 
and   which,  so   help    me    God,  I    heartily  embrace.      But 
those  vulgär   opinions   most   unworthy  of   this  very  awful 
mystery,  those  senseless  and  pernicious  doctrines,  differing 
no  less  from  Christianity  than  Socinianism,  which  some  new 
divines  have  brought  forward  in  this  question,  far  be  it  that 
I  should  mix  those  up  with  the  Catliolic  faith.     I  mean,  their 


ßpiüirlcf. 
oIkovo^xIo. 


not  Socinian,  tliough  eqtially  to  he  avoided.  241 

opinions  who  teach  eitlier  that  God  the  Father  was  really   SECT. 

angry  witli  His  Son  ever  most  beloved  by  Him,  even  wlien h 

He  was  oflFering  Himself  upon  tlie  cross  for  a  '^  sweet ««  o^ixtiv 
smelling  savour/^  or  that  Christ  in  His  passion  underwent  £ph.  5.  2. 
the  pimishment  and  infernal  torments  of  the  damned ;  or 
that  the  Savionr  of  all  offered  Himself  as  a  sacrifice  only  for 
the  sins  of  a  certain  few ;  and  that  too,  as  they  say,  in  their 
person,  so  that  they  themselves  niight  be  thought  to  ha^e 
satisfied  the  Divine  Justice,  and  be  accounted  through  that 
satisfaction  formally  righteous,  and  free,  in  God's  sight,  not 
only  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  but  actually  from  its  commission  : 
or  (which  is  the  consequence  of  this  view)  that  these  few,  for 
Avhom  alone  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  avails,  have  been  by  it, 
ipso  facto,  liberated  and  so  justified  at  the  judgment-seat  of 
God,  before  they  were  born;  and  that  that  justification 
■which  is  attributed  to  faith  in  the  Scriptures,  ought  to  be 
understood  merely  of  the  justification  in  the  judgment  of  con- 
science,  or  of  the  feeling  and  perception  of  justification  which 
has  taken  place  long  before ;  or  lastly,  that  the  salutaiy  fruits 
of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  revealed  to  us  in  the  Gospel  by 
the  Avill  of  God  the  Father,  and  of  Christ,  depend  solely  on 
the  one  conditiou  of  a  single  virtue,  naraely  faith ;  which  is 
clearly  the  opinion  of  our  Doctor.  They  who  have  not  only 
themselves  built  up  upon  this  fundamental  article  of  the 
Christian  religion,  such  '  wood,  hay,  and  straw,^  together 
with  the  gold  of  Catholic  doctrine,  but  have  also  obtruded  ou 
others,  almost  with  anathemas,  these  additions,  as  if  they 
were  the  very  foundation  itself,  must  look  to  themselves  how 
they  will  hereafter  give  account  at  the  judgment-seat  of 
God. 

§  10.  But  our  opponents  urge,  that  at  any  rate  in  the 
controversy  about  justification  the  Harmonist  is  a  Socinian 
and  has  openly  passed  over  to  the  ranks  of  Socinus.  I  an- 
swer :  This  is  plainly  false,  even  from  what  I  have  already 
Said.  For  there  is  this  vast  diflference  betwecn  Socinus  and 
the  Harmonist  on  the  chief  point  of  all,  namely,  the  primary 
meritorious  cause  of  our  justification,  which  the  Harmonist 
constantly  teaches  is  to  be  found  solely  in  the  propitiatory 
sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ :  while  Socinus  actually  acknow- 
ledsres  none  at  all,     But  what  necd  is  there  of  manv  words? 


242  Necessity  for  fully  refuting  these  calumnies. 

S  E  C  T.   Tliis  is  tlie  simi  of  my  doctrine  concerning  the  justification 

— — '■ —  of  man,  (and  if  Dr.  Tully  can  prove  tliat  I  teach  any  thing 

beyond  these  two  points,  he  has  the  \'ictory,)  that  no  one 

under  the  evangehcal  covenant  which  has  been  obtained  and 

ratified  by  the  meritorious  outpoming  of  the  Blood  of  Christ, 

can  possibly  obtain  remission  of  sins,  and  justification,  with- 

out  faith  and  repentance;    and  that  without  the  fruits  of 

faith  and  repentance,  no  one  can  possibly  keep  and  preserve 

their  justification  when  obtained.     Now  if  this  be  Socinian 

doctrine,  (for  I  may  here  allude  to  the  words  with  which 

Just.  Paul.  Dr.  Tully  somewhere   ridicules   the   Harmonist,)    then  the 

^'     '        Fathers  are  Socinian,  the  Clmrch  of  England  is  Socinian,  all 

the  more  sound  among  the  reformed  are  Socinian,  the  very 

Gospel  itself  is  Socinian.     Who  then  will  be  ashamed  of  this 

Socinianism,  which  is  honoured  with  such  patrons? 

§  11.  I  have  dwelt  longer  in  ridding  myself  of  this  charge 
of  Socinianism,  both  because  it  is  by  itself  of  great  conse- 
quence,  and  because  I  have  heard  from  many  quarters  that 
this  report  about  me  has  been  so  widely  spread  by  the 
artifices  and  industry  of  my  enemies,  that  I  am  now  almost 
every  where  taken  for  a  Socinian.  Indeed  I  speak  from 
experience  that  this  atrocious  calurany  has  not  only  been 
detrimental  to  my  family,  but  also  (and  what  most  vexes  me) 
a  great  impediment  to  the  success  of  my  labours  in  the  sacred 
ministry.  May  Almighty  God  of  Plis  most  plenteous  mercy 
give  them  grace  to  repent  seriously  and  in  time,  for  so  foul 
an  injury  towards  their  brother,  that  they  may  escape 
that  tremendous  judgment  which  awaits  slanderers  in  the 
World  to  come,  Meanwhile  I  comfort  myself  with  the  bless- 
ing  of  my  Lord  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  Who  said, 
Mat.^5.  "Blessed  are  ye  when  men  shall  revile  you  and  persecute 
you  and  say  all  manner  of  evil  against  you  falsely,  for  my 
sake.  Rejoice  and  be  exceeding  glad,  for  great  is  your 
reward  in  heaven."  So  far  then  for  the  name  of  Inno- 
vators, undcr  which  Dr.  Tully  wished  in  the  title  of  his 
book  to  crush  his  adversaries;  the  odium  of  which  I  have 
so  removed,  that  I  have  omitted  scarccly  any  thing  in 
the  whole  book  which  has  reference  to  it.  I  have  done  so 
with  this  design,  that  now  a  sensible  reader  may  proceed, 
with  his  mind  free  from  prejudices,  and  without  any  obstacle, 


11, 12. 


Characier  of  Dr.  Tully's  preface.  243 

to  the  examiuation  of  those  points  which  relate  to  the  ques-   s  E  c  T. 
tion  itself.  '- — 


SECTION  II. 

ON  THE  PREFACE  OF  THE  BOOK. 

§  1.  The  thinking  reader  might  conjectiire  from  the 
Doctor's  preface,  what  he  T\-as  to  expect  as  he  proceeded  in 
the  book  itseK.  ludeed,  no  sooner  is  he  started,  than  he 
goes  wide  of  the  goal :  for  in  the  beginning  of  his  work  he 
attempts  to  set  forth  -u-ith  a  weighty  apparatiis  of  words,  of 
what  conseqnence  in  the  judgment  of  the  Prophets,  of  Christ, 
of  the  Apostles,  Doctors,  of  all  the  Churches,  new  and  old,  is 
the  controversy  about  the  justification  of  the  sinner,  namely, 
whether  it  depends  on  the  merits  of  men,  or  only  of  Christ 
our  Savioiu'.  But  I  ask,  who  amongst  his  opponents,  whom 
he  particularly  attacks  in  this  work,  has  ever  denied  this? 
Wlierefore  I  pass  over  this  very  long  piece  of  rhetoric  as 
clearly  irrelevant  to  the  subject.  aitpaa^iö- 

§  2.  Then  the  reverend  gentleman  goes  on  to  censure  very 
severely  those  divines  who  thought  they  ought  to  abstain 
from  the  controversy  which  he  himself  is  carryiug  on  with 
so  much  zeal  against  the  Harmonist  and  others,  on  the 
ground  that  it  turned  on  a  mere  contest  of  words ;  tliat  is,  xoyoixa- 
they  Said  that  they  had  no  other  opinion  about  it,  than  that  '^'°'' 
which  aU  the  more  sound  men  amongst  Protestants  held, 
though  perhaps  expressed  in  other  words.  These  he  ridi- 
cules  as  sluggish,  sleepy,  and  downright  Gallios,  who  cared 
not  which  way  the  chief  points  of  Christian  doctrine  were 
defined  so  long  as  they  themselves  could  enjoy  their  ease, 
and  he  ridicules  and  inveighs  against  them  in  these  words : 
"  I  know  not  what  torpor  (in  tliis  sluggish  age)  has  seized  p.  3. 
those  also  who  perhaps  make  no  contrary  definition,  that 
they  should  consider  the  most  grand  and  important  of  all 
coutroversies  as  a  mere  useless  contest  of  words,  and  thus 
take  good  carc  that  it  ncver  deprive  them  of  their  sweet 
slumbers."  That  this  ccrtainly  is  a  mere  qucstion  of  words, 
whethcr  faith  which  is  fruitfnl,  or  faith  in  that  it  is  fnuifid,  qua 
justifies  a  man  under  the  Gospel  covenant,  I  have  observcd 
myself  in  the  Harmony,  Diss.  I.  vi.  2.  p.  33,  where  also  I  have 

R  2 


244         TJie  Doctor's  theology  subtile  and  fine-drawn, 
SECT.   shewn  the  consent  of  all  sound  Protestants  ou  this  point. 

TT 

'- —  Only  I  noted  in  the  same  place,  tliat  the  common  run  of  men 


had  conceived  most  dangerous  errors  from  the  doctrine  of 
justification  having  been  explained  in  unappropriate  terms 
by  certain  reformed  divines  whose  opinions  and  views  in 
other  respects  were  sound  and  orthodox,  which  errors  these 
di\dnes  in  vain  endeavoiired  afterwards  to  remedy  by  their 
minute  distinctions  and  cautions.  I  praised  that  wise  saying 
of  the  great  Grotius  on  this  point,  "  Incaiitious  ways  of 
speaking  lead  to  pernicions  consequences."  Nor  indeed  is 
xoyotxa-  the  Harmony  taken  up  with  these  questions  of  words,  its 
ivavT  10-  o^jsct  and  design  being  to  recoucile  the  apparent  difFerence 
(pavtias  of  the  two  Apostlcs  in  a  most  important  matter  ;  and  by  far 
ivcTvor)Toi!:  thc  largcst  part  of  it  treats  of  the  hard  sayings  of  St.  Paul, 
which  the  Apostle  St.  Peter  of  old  complained  were  understood 
in  bad  and  dangerous  ways  1)y  the  unlearned ;  and  would 
that  we  in  the  present  day  had  no  just  ground  for  the  same 
coraplaint.  If  from  this  work,  which,  alas  !  is  but  too  neces- 
sary,  some  contentious  persons  have  taken  occasion  of  gene- 
rating  empty  questions  of  words  and  useless  controversies, 
this  is  not  to  be  imputed  as  my  fault.  But  when  Dr.  Tully 
in  the  same  place  seriously  wams  those  divines  who  seem  to 
me  to  be  prudent  and  moderate  men,  "that  they  do  not 
magnalia  account  as  notliing  the  great  things  of  Divine  truth,^^  it  is 
worth  while  to  know  what  these  great  things  are,  for  which 
he  considers  we  should  earnestly  contend.  Listen  then  at- 
tentively  to  the  Doctor's  subtile  theology.  We  are  justified, 
he  says,  by  faith  only,  and  that,  not  as  a  human  work, 
although  good,  nor  only  as  a  condition  laid  down  in  the 
Gospel,  but  as  an  instrument,  apprehending  and  applying 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  alone.  We  are  justified  indeed 
by  faith  which  is  'the  hearty  acceptation  of  Christ  as  our 
Lord  and  Saviour/  but  beware  lest  you  attribute  justifica- 
tion to  that  part  of  faith  which  has  reference  to  Christ  as 
Just  Paul.  Lord ;  "  But  since  the  offices  of  Christ  as  Priest,  and  Lord, 
^'  '  '  ■  or  King,  although  always  the  same  and  undivided  in  their 
subject,  are  yet  formally  separated  by  the  intellect;  it  follows, 
that  justification,  which  arises  solely  from  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ,  not  from  His  dominion,  and  which  in  its  formal  con- 
ception  is  included  not  in  the  mortification  of  sin,  but  in  its 


and  the  worst  kind  of  Antinomianism.  245 

non-imputatioiij  or  the  absolution  of  the  sinner,  must  have  s  E  C  T. 
for  its  primary  or  formal  object  Christ  as  Priest  or  Savioiir.       ^^- 
In  the  other  conceptions  of  them,  Christ,  I  confess,  is  the 
object  of  justification,  as  the  ^which^  or  material,  as  Sa\iour 
alone  and  Priest,  the  formal  or  '  by  which  •/  that  is,  (so  that 
these  scholastic   distinctions  may  not  hurt  tender  minds,) 
although  Christ  be  alike  Lord  and  Priest,  and  as  a  whole  is 
received  in  justification,  yet  as  a  whole  in  every  sense,  i.  e. 
looking  at  all  His  ofl&ces  at  once.  He  is  not  formally  required 
for  justification,  but  only  in  that  He  is  Priest,  and  satisfying 
the  law."     Who  in  his  senses  is  not  indignant  that  these 
trivial   distinctions  should   be   bandied  about  as  the  great  asttoa-o- 
things  of  Divine  truth,  some  of  which  you  can  scarcely,  and  ^  "' 
hardly  that,  bring  to  a  definite  meaning,  as  wlien  Christ  is 
so  often  called  'the  object  of  justification?'     And  yet  this  is 
nothing.     Dr.  TuUy  reverences  as  the  great  things  of  Divine 
truth  some  very  pernicious  doctrines,  which  are  dreadful  to 
Christian  ears,  and  contends  for  these  as  for  our  very  religion 
itself.     Of  this  kind  are,  that  man  is  iustified,  i.  e.  that  his  pp.  so — 
sins  are  remitted,  and  a  right  to  salvation  given  him,  before     ' 
he  repents  and  is  really  contrite ;  that  a  wicked  mau  is  justi- 
fied  in  the  conjunctive   sense,  i.  e.  whilst  he  still  remains  sensu 
wicked ;    or  that   each  man  is  wicked   before  justification,  p^Toaf^  ** 
whatever  be  the  account  of  it ;   that  no  virtue  or  work  of  P-  ^^• 
man  is  requisite  for  justification,  any  more  than  for  a  man 
already  born  that  he  may  be  born.     Certainly  Dr.  Tully 
takes    good    care    that    this   controversy   be   not   hereafter 
esteemed   as   a   mere   question  of  words,  when   he   openly  yv/^vrj 
defends  the  very  dregs    of  Antinomianism,  as    apostolical,  "*      ^ 
Catholic  doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  of  all  reformed  Churches, 
and  so  confidently  obtrudes  them  upon  us. 

§  3.  But  who  is  not  amazed  at  that  tnily  tragic  discourse 
which  Dr.  Tully,  as  if  from  a  platform,  thunders  agaiust  the  e  suggesto 
Harmouist  and  the  rest  of  his  adversaries,  namely,  that 
"justification  badly  understood,  was  that  stone  of  scandal  p.  3,  4. 
and  rock  of  offence  at  which  the  Jews  stumbled,  because  they 
sought  for  life  amidst  the  sepulchres  of  works,  justification 
not  from  the  law  of  faith,  but  from  works ;  that  the  contro^ 
versy  is  confessedly  not  about  limits,  but  about  the  entire 
possession ;    not   for   the  walls,   but   for   the    palladiura    of 


246  Declaration  of  the  tnie  and  only  way 

S  E  C  T.  Chiistianity :  wliere  even  from  the  least  stnmble  (as  ■vvith 

'- —  tliose  Walking  ou  the  ice)  the  greatest  danger  may  arise  :  that 

there  is  no  hope  of  obtaining  salvation  from  God,  if  the  one 
only  way  be  unknovrn :  lastly,  when  the  sacred  page  points 
out  to  US  two  ways  of  being  justified  before  God,  the  way  of 
faith,  and  that  of  works,  aud  puts  these  face  to  face,  aud  so 
often  and  so  openly  puts  aside  whatever  steers  between  the 
t\vOj  that  to  choose  which  path  a  man  will  take,  is  not  a  mere 
game  of  dice_,  but  rather  as  it  were  the  pledge  and  agi'eemeut 
for  eternal  life."  Who,  I  say,  is  not  wholly  astounded  at 
these  words ?  Does  Dr.  Tidly  seriously  beheAe  that  in  the 
question  of  the  justification  of  man,  we  agree  with  the  Jews, 
that  is,  that  we  hope  for  righteousness  and  salyatiou  from  the 
law  of  ]\Ioses  or  from  any  of  our  own  works,  without  Christ 
as  our  Mediator  ?  Does  he  seriously  belieye  that  we  have  lost 
the  whole  possession  of  our  faith,  and  the  very  palladium  of 
Christianity.;  that  we  are  ignorant  of  the  only  method  of 
obtaining  salyation,  and,  as  he  says,  of  the  two  ways  of  being 
justified  before  God,  the  one  leading  to  life,  the  other  to  de- 
struction ;  that  we  have  chosen  this  latter  as  the  pledge  and 
agi'eement  of  our  most  miserable  eternal  fate?  If  so,  may 
God  haye  mercy  on  the  man  whom  judgment  or  charity 
have  so  entirely  deserted.  Let  the-  reverend  gentleman 
know,  that  I  know  of  no  other  method  of  obtaining  justifica- 
tion and  salvation  beside  this,  I  most  firml}'  believe  that  if  I 
yield  a  füll  assent  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  and  if  I  truly  re- 
pent  through  that  faith,  that  is,  by  the  grace  of  Christ  cast 
ofl"  the  yoke  of  all  mortal  sin,  and  seriously  devote  myself  to 
the  obedieuce  of  the  Gospel  law,  that  through  the  supreme 
mercy  of  God  the  Father,  and  throiigh  the  sole  merits  of  His 
Son  my  Lord  and  Sariour  Jesus  Christ,  "\Vho  for  my  sins,  and 
the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  offered  a  true  propitiatory  Sacri- 
fice  to  His  Father,  all  my  past  sins,  as  many  and  as  great  as 
they  may  bc,  will  be  fully  i-emittcd.  And  I  so  trust  that  my 
sins  are  really  remitted,  and  that  I  am  already  placed  in  a 
State  of  grace  and  salvation,  as  I  am  assured,  from  a  serious 
examination  of  my  conscience  according  to  the  rule  of  the 
Gospel,  concerning  my  faith  and  rcpcntance.  I  bclievc  that 
as  long  as  I  bring  forth  worthy  fruits  of  faith  and  rcpentance, 
that  is,  whilc  I  kccp  from  those  crimcs  whicli  according  to  the 


of  obtaininr/  justification  and  salvation.  24^7 

Gospel  exclude  a  man   from  tlie  kingdom  of  heaven,  aud  S  E  C  T. 

earnestly  practise  good  works,  as  well  of  piety  towards  God  '- — 

as  of  justice  and  love  towards  my  neiglibour,  I  sliall  preserve 
the   grace   of  remission    and  justification  I  liave   receivcd, 
and  that  at  length,  if  I  die  in  tliis  state  of  rigliteousness^  by 
the  same  mercy  of  God,  tkrough  and  for  the  sake  of  Christ, 
I  shall  attain  eternal  life  and  salvation.     I  believe  that  it  is 
possible  for  me  to  fall,  and  after  having  received  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  our  Church  says,  to  depart  from  grace,  and  therefore, 
according  to  the  advice  of  the  A^ostle,  'I  work  out  my  own  Phil.  2. 12. 
salvation  with  fear  and  trembling.'     I  believe  that  in  the 
Gospel,  pardon  is  promised  to  as  many  as  have  fallen,  and  as 
often  as  they  do  so,  so  that  tliey  only  renew  their  repentance 
before  their  death  and  "do  the  first  works  •/'  but  that  to  thcse  Rev.  2.  5. 
same  neither  space  of  life  nor  grace,  by  wliich  they  may 
repent  is  any  where  promised :    and  that  so  that  sapng  of 
St.  Augustine  is  most  true,  that  "  God  does  not  give  pcrse-  De  Cor- 
verance  to  some  of  His  sons  whom  he  has  regenerated  in  q^^j  ^ 
Christ,  and  has  giveu  to  them  faith,   hope,  and   love."     I  §•  [§  18. 
beheve  that  a  certain  extraordinary  grace  is  given  to  some  p.  759.] 
by  the  will  of  God :  but  I  deem  it  to  be  the  greatest  maduess 
for  any  one  to  presume  on  that  grace,  or  to  assure  himself  of 
any  thing  for  certain,  beyond  the  promises  of  God  made  to  us 
in  the  Gospel.    Lastly,  I  am  most  persuaded  that  throughout 
the  whole  course  of  my  salvation,  from  the  beginning  even  to 
the  end  of  it,  the  grace  and  assistance  of  the  Di\ine  Spirit  is 
necessary  for  me,  and  that  I  never  have  done,  or  can  do,  any 
Spiritual  good  without  Christ.    And  yet  I  do  not  hold  up  the 
necessity  of  grace  as  a  veil  for  my  OAvn  slothfulness,  inasmuch 
as  I  know  that  that  grace  is  not  given  except  to  those  who 
pray  unceasingly  for  it,  nor  its  effect  except  to  those  Avho 
watch.    Indeed  our  Lord  Himself  has  joined  these  two  things, 
watching  and  prayer,  and  so  has  taught  us  (as  a  very  learned  irpoa-oxh", 
interpreter  has  observed)  how  fitly  Divine  assistance  works  lly^^l' 
together  with  human  diligence.     For  he  who  is  commanded  :Mat.  26. 
to  watch  is  not  actuated  as  '  a  moveable  piece  of  wood  with  ^  J  21  36 
sinews  not  his  own .'    he  who  is  to  pray  is  shewn  that  he 
Stands  in  nced  of  Divine  assistance,  without  which  all  human 
industry  is  vain.     This  is  the  way  of  obtainiug  sah  atiou,  on 
which,  by  the  grace  of  God,  I  have  entered,  or  certainly 


248  Tnsincerity  and  unfairness  of  Dr.  TuUy 

SECT.  meant  to  enter;  aud  whicli  I  chose,  both  because  tliis  is 
^^-  clearly  sliewn  to  me  iu  tbe  Holy  Scripture^  and  because  it  is 
a  trodden  and  safe  way,  which  all  Catbolic  Christians  for  at 
least  fifteen  hiindred  years  from  the  birtb  of  our  Sa\aour 
liave  trodden  before.  If  Dr.  Tully  knows  of  another,  let  bim 
follow  it  at  bis  own  peril,  if  he  bas  so  determined  witb  bim- 
self,  wbicb  I  bope  he  bas  not :  he  certainly  will  not  have  me 
as  a  companion, 

§  4.    I  know  not  indeed  with  what  sincerity  Dr.  Tully 
declares  that  he  bas  unwillingly  entered  the  lists  of  this  con- 

p.  5.  troversy.  "^Miat,  does  he  enter  unwillingly,  who  without  being 

called,  ay,  and  against  the  consent  of  tbe  governors  of  the 
Church,  to  whose  judgment  he  ought  to  have  submitted,  bas 
intruded  and  thrust  bimself  into  the  controversy :  -wbo  after 
ha%dng  been  rejected  three  times  by  those  wbo  bad  tbe  care 
of  the  press,  (I  say  what  I  know  to  be  the  fact,)  at  last  bas  ob- 
tained  permission  to  print  somewhat  secretly,  and  by  no  very 
praiseworthy  artifice  ?  But  forsooth  the  incitements  of  so  great 
a  cause  have  urged  bim  on.  In  tbe  first  place,  what  contumely 
is  it  against  those  heads  of  our  Chui'cb  who  have  not  only 
favoured  so  great  a  cause,  but  have  exercised  their  autbority 
against  it  ?  And  then  if  zeal  only  for  a  great  cause,  and  as 
he  presently  expresses  bimself,  the  avenging  of  sacred  truth 
bas  dragged  bim  into  this  contest,  why  did  he  refuse  au 
amicable  Conference  by  writing,  which  I  myself  ofiFered  bim  ? 
For  tbe  reader  may  know  that  wben  I  was  once  speaking 
with  tbe  Doctor,  concerning  bis  work  against  me,  which  was 
then,  as  he  expresses  it,  just  in  the  birtb,  I  most  eamestly 
implored  bim  to  have  a  regard  for  the  peace  of  the  Church, 
and  to  be  very  careful  that  from  tbe  public  disagreement  of 
two  di\Tines  of  tbe  same  Church,  no  occasion  sbould  be  given 
either  of  slander  to  schismatics  and  enemies  of  our  Church, 
or  of  stumbling  to  the  weak  :  and  moreover,  I  entreated  bim 
that  he  would  communicate  bis  papers  to  me  in  a  friendly 
manner,  under  this  condition,  that  if  be  could  prove  in  them, 
that  I  bad  written  any  thing  contrary  to  sound  doctrine,  I 
would  not  refuse  publicly  to  retract  my  error :  he  answered, 
that  "  he  would  send  me,  perhaps  in  a  short  time,  a  copy  of 
bis  papers."  Dr.  Tully  knows  that  I  speak  the  truth,  and 
that  I  also  have  as  a  witness  to  tbe  fact  a  divine  of  well- 


in  his  way  of  conducting  the  controversy.  249 

knoTm  trustworthiness,  who  was  present  at  our  conversation.  s  E  C  T. 


But  I  was  never  permitted  to  see  these  papers,  tili  they 
became,  by  means  of  the  press,  public  property,  and  were 
exposed  to  the  eyes  of  all  men. 

§  5.  The  reverend  gentleman  at  the  close  of  his  Preface 
seriously  exhorts  his  opponents  with  these  words.  "  This  p-  6. 
much,  I  beseech  and  implore  the  supporters  of  the  opposite 
cause,  that  if  they  are  meditating  an  answer,  they  do  it  with 
such  candour,  sobriety,  and  reverence  for  Christian  peace, 
that  we  may  hold  different  opinions,  if  not  with  safety  to  the 
cause  of  truth,  at  any  rate  with  our  friendship  unbroken." 
Good  sentiments  indeed  !  and  would  that  he  himself  had  ob- 
served  the  law  he  lays  down  for  others.  But  how  can  he 
have  a  love  for  candour,  who  has  decked  out  his  answer  to 
his  adversaiVs  work  with  such  artifices  as  I  have  mentioned 
above,  so  opposed  to  all  straightforwardness  ?  Where  is  his 
sobriety,  reverence  for  Christian  peace,  desire  of  preserving 
friendship  safe  and  sound  with  those  who  differ  from  him, 
when  he  every  where  describes  those  of  different  opinions  to 
himself  as  sophists,  Innovators,  deserters  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  of  England,  notwithstanding  the  repetition  of 
their  oaths  and  subscriptions ;  as  rivals  of  the  Papists,  fawners 
upon  the  Jesuits ;  as  men  pei'fidiously  sernng  the  interests 
of  Papists,  or  Socinians,  under  the  false  name  of  Sons  of  the 
Church  of  England;  as  temporizers,  and  such  like  ?  Surely 
it  is  but  a  meagre  excuse  which  he  gives  for  the  intemperance 
of  his  pen,  when  he  says,  "  Truth,  I  confess,  may  sometimes  p.  5. 
demand  vehemence  of  style,  but  never  fury;"  as  if  all  vehe- 
mence  of  style  which  keeps  itself  within  furiousness  were 
to  be  esteemed  sobriety.  If  it  be  so,  I  bid  the  reverend 
gentleman  be  quite  easy  as  to  the  sobriety  to  be  obsen-ed  by 
the  supporters  of  the  opposite  cause,  since  there  is  nothing 
in  his  book  to  drive  any  of  his  opponents  into  furiousness. 

SECTION  III. 

ON  THE  FIRST  CHAPTER— STATE  OF  THE  QüESTION. 

§  1.  Dr.  Tully  seems  to  have  bcen  desirous  of  shewing, 
in  defining  the  state  of  the  question  how  "  accustoraed  he 


II. 


250  Dr.  Tully's  vieiv  of  the  question. 

s  E  C  T.  was  to  Splitting  liairs  in  controversy/^  the  skilfulness  in  that 
: —  art  lie  had  pretty  evidently  assumed  to  liimself  in  liis  Preface. 


But  here  the  reverend  gentleman  exalts  himself  in  a  wonder- 
ful  way,  and  looks  down,  as  it  were  from  a  lofty  eminence, 
upon  his  adversaries.  For  he  ridicules  them  as  "  Sophists/' 
and  deluded  bits  of  men  "  fighting  with  shadows/^  and  says 
that  the  "  state  of  the  question  had  been  miserably  confused 
by  them;"  but   "he  himself  promises  to  explain  it  briefly, 

p.  8.  simply,  and  clearly."   And  not  content  with  this,  when  about 

to  close  the  chapter,  he  bids  his  reader  if  "he  would  not 
wander  in  the  clouds,  keep  in  mind"  his  explanation  of  the 
State  of  the  question,  as  he  will  then  easily  perceive  "  what 
light  straws  of  petty  reasonings"  are  held  out  by  his  adver- 
saries, "  instead  of  solid  arguments."  Come  then,  let  us  see 
if  he  can  produce  any  thing  answerable  to  such  ostentations, 
and  such  magnificent  promises. 

ibid.  §  2.  "In  the  first  place,"  he  says,   "we  lay  down   that 

there  never  was  any  controversy  in  the  reformed  Chui'ches, 
either  amongst  themselves,  or  with  others,  whether  faith 
which  justifies  be  harren  or  unfruitful,  and  bereft  of  good 
works,  as  opportunity  offers;  such  a  faith  all  dismiss  from 
the  work  of  justification,"  &c.  If  this  be  true,  let  him  see  in 
what  way  he  can  reconcile  his  doctrine  with  the  common 
opinion  of  all  reformers.  For  according  to  his  theology, 
justifying  faith,  when  it  justifies,  is  quite  a  barren  thing, 
without  any  good  work  or  A'irtue;  inasmuch  as  it  justifies 
before  any  sanctification  of  the  heart,  and  so  before  true 
contrition  for  sin,  whilst  a  man  is  still  wicked  and  destitute 
of  every  good  work.  But  how  can  he  dismiss  from  the  work 
of  justification,  a  faith  bereft  of  good  works,  when  he  attri- 
butcs  justification  to  faith,  before  every  good  work  even 
internal?  In  vain  does  hc  proclaim  that  saying  of  some 
divines,  "  Faith  pregnant  with  good  works  justifies  before  the 
birth,"  since  that  clever  apothegm  has  been  amply  refuted 

Harm.       by  US  iu  auothcr  place.     Besidcs,  one  cannot  conceive  how, 

•2  p^'og^'in  any  intclligible  way,  a  man  can  be  real  ly  wicked  before 
justification,  and  destitute  of  every  good  quality,  as  Dr.  Tully 
asserts,  who  in  any  intclligible  way  possesses  a  faith  pregnant 
with  good  works,  before  justification. 

§  3.  llo  procceds :  "  Nor,  sccondly,  is  it  madc  a  question. 


Inconsistency  qfhis  teaching.  251 

wliether,  together  with  justifying  faith,  the  radical  seeds,  or  s  E  C  T. 

(if  you  had  ratlier)  the  habit  of  the  other  virtues  be  im- lil: 

planted  ;  for  tliis  is  granted  on  both  sides."  Again,  I  do  not 
see  how  the  Doctor's  theology  is  consistent.  For,  if  together 
with  the  habit  of  justifying  faith,  the  habit  of  the  other 
virtues  be  implanted,  it  follows  that  this  implanting  of  the 
habits  of  the  other  virtues  must  precede  justificatiou,  for 
Dr.  TuUy  confesses  that  justifying  faith  precedes  justifica- 
tioUj  and  indeed  it  is  self-evident.  Elsewhere  the  reverend  Endür. 
gentleman  eagerly  contends  that  sanctification,  which  he  ^  "  ^Jy 
makes  to  cousist  in  the  implanting  of  those  habits,  is 
altogether  posterior  to  justification,  and  (as  we  have  seen) 
that  a  man  at  the  very  moment  of  his  justification  is  eutirely 
wicked.  Dr.  TuEy  might  say,  perhaps,  (which  indeed  he 
does  say,)  that  the  implanting  of  the  habit  of  faith  is  alto- 
gether, in  Order  of  nature,  prior  to  justification,  and  that  the 
implanting  of  the  other  habits  of  virtue  is  posterior  to  it : 
but  yet  that  these  three  works  of  Divine  grace,  namely  the 
implanting  the  habit  of  faith,  justification,  and  then  the  im- 
planting the  habits  of  the  other  virtues,  are  contcmporaneous, 
and,  as  they  say,  are  effected  in  one  and  the  same  moment. 
Wonderful  acuteness  !  But  I  answer,  Ist,  if  we  were  to  allow 
that  any  such  instantaneous  infusion  of  the  virtues  were  to 
be  found,  that  would  not  lessen  the  difficulty.  For  since  our 
adversaries  confess  that  a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  mere 
habit  of  faith,  but  by  some  act  of  faith  (whatever  that  may 
be)  proceeding  from  that  habit,  it  follows  that  some  interval 
of  time  must  come  between  the  implanting  of  the  habit  of 
faith  and  the  justification  of  man,  in  which  this  justifying 
act  of  faith  may  be  performed ;  whence  any  one  may  see  that 
if  the  habit  of  justifying  faith  and  of  the  other  virtues  be 
implanted  at  the  same  time,  the  implanting  of  the  other 
virtues  cannot  possibly  be  in  any  way,  either  in  time  or 
nature,  posterior  to  justification.  But  3ndly,  to  state  the 
matter  plainly,  I  consider  that  this  widely-spread  doctrine  of 
the  simple  and  instantaneous  infusion  of  all  the  Christian 
virtues  at  once  into  the  soul  of  man,  whether  it  be  before  or 
after  justification,  is  very  erroneous,  and  moreover  is  the 
fountain  and  spring  of  other  important  crrors  in  theology. 
May  I  then,  with  the  reader's  pcrmission,  explaiu  bricfly, 


252  Christian  virtues  are  habits, 

S  E  C  T.  by  the  way^  one  most  useful,  and  in  many  points,  most  neces- 

: —  sary  truth. 

§  4.  And  first  we  must  lay  down  this  as  a  foundation, 
that  Christian  virtues  are  habits,  neither  simply  infused  nor 
simply  acquired,  but  mixed,  that  is,  partly  infused,  partly 
acquired.  To  explain  myself:  these  virtues  are  not  habits 
simply  acquired,  because  they  are  by  no  means  acquired 
through  any  previous  acts  on  our  part,  without  the  grant  of 
the  grace  of  God,  and  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Nor 
are  they  habits  simply  infused,  for  this  unassailable  reason; 
that  which  is  simply  infused,  it  were  in  vain  and  even  absurd 
to  impose  upon  us  as  a  duty,  or  condition,  necessary  for 
obtaining  salvation.  (For  why  is  that  enjoined  upon  us  by 
God,  which  God  Himself  alone  creates  in  us?)  But  these 
virtues  are  so  imposed  upon  us,  and  not  in  vain,  therefore 
they  are  not  simply  infused  :  wliat  tlien  ?  I  should  call  these 
virtues  (in  the  words  of  a  most  learned  man)  certain  acts  of 
ours  which  are  excited  and  brought  out  by  grace,  preventing, 
calling  forth,  assisting,  accompanying  and  subsequent  upon 
them,  but  in  such  a  way  that  the  frequent  and  continual 
Performance  of  these  acts  at  length  generates  in  the  soul 
certain  habits,  by  which  we  have  the  will  and  ability  to 
perform  the  acts  themselves  easily,  willingly,  and  constantly. 
For  in  supernatural  things  it  must  be  granted  that  the 
moving  principle  of  the  acts  themselves  is  a  supernatural 
cause,  which  need  not  be  in  things  natural.  And  this  being 
granted,  the  entire  necessity,  dignity,  and  efficacy  of  Divine 
grace  can  be  kept  entire  together  with  created  nature  itself, 
which  still  exists  under  sin.  For  we  must  look  upon  grace 
in  such  a  light  as  not  to  do  away  with  the  whole  created 
nature  of  the  subject  on  which  it  acts,  which  must  of  neces- 
sity follow,  when  it  is  taken  for  granted  that  such  an  Infusion 
and  influx  of  the  implanted  habit  passes  immediately  on  into 
action.  With  this  tlien  laid  down  as  the  foundation  of  our 
argument,  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  explain  intelligibly 
(as  far  as  human  weakness  can  do   so)  the  reason,  order, 

olKovofi.ias  and  as  it  were,  method  of  the  whole  dispensation  by 
which,  through  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  saving  virtues 
are  generated  in  our  souls,  and  our  salvation  is  procured. 
Certain  acts  or  dispositions  (as  they  are  called)  necessarily 


partly  infused,  partly  acquired,  253 

precede  the  justification  of  man,  by  wliich  a  raan  is  rendered  s  E  c  t. 

fit  and  able  to  receive  so  great  a  blessing  frora  God  :  such '- 

are,  sorrow  for  sin,  liatred  of  sin,  humble  Submission  to  God, 
flying  to  God's  mercy,  placing  our  hope  in  Christ  our  Media- 
tor, the  desire  of  the  DiWne  favour;  before  all  tliings,  a  stead- 
fast  piirpose  of  leading  a  we^x  life,  and  the  like ;  all  of  which 
are  comprehended  in  Holy  Writ  under  the  two  words,  Faith, 
and  Repentance.  These  acts  hoTvever,  or  dispositions,  by  no 
means  proceed  from  the  mere  strength  of  a  man's  will ;  but 
are  altogether  produced  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  preventing,  ex- 
citing,  assisting,  accompanying  (though  not  as  yet  dwelling 
in)  a  man.  They  are  nevertheless  produced  in  the  man  and 
by  him  through  the  grace  of  God,  not  in  an  instant,  which  is 
impossible,  (since  it  is  of  itself  manifest,  that  for  a  man  to 
produce  all  these  acts,  there  is  need  of  time,  and  as  it  were  a 
series  of  pious  reflections,)  neither  necessarily,  or  as  they  say, 
irresistibly :  but  gradually,  and  in  such  a  measure  as  a  man 
obeys  the  leading  of  the  Di^dne  Word  and  Spirit.  To  a  man 
thus  thi'ough  grace  disposed,  that  greatest  of  blessings,  justi- 
fication, is  given  through  the  great  mercy  of  God,  and  by 
and  for  the  sake  of  Christ ;  Ins  sins,  however  many  or  great 
they  may  be,  ai^e  fully  forgiven,  and  a  right  to  eternal  sal- 
vation  is  granted  him  :  and  then  upon  the  man  now  justified, 
and  so  presented  with  the  privilege  of  adoption,  "the  Spirit  vloOfffias 
of  adoption^'  is  sent  forth  to  be  as  it  were  a  sign  of  love  and  Gal.  4.  6. 
the  seal  of  his  adoption.  This  gift  of  the  Spirit  which  follows 
justification,  difFers  in  two  ways  from  the  grace  of  the  same 
Spirit,  which  prevents  and  effects  the  conversion  of  a  man  : 
first,  because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  united  more  closely  and 
nearly  than  before  to  the  soul  now  purged  of  its  vices, 
penetrates  more  deeply  into  it,  and  pervades  more  fully  all 
its  faculties.  Whence  in  the  Scriptures  the  Holy  Spuit  is 
Said,  before  a  man^s  conversion,  to  knock  as  it  were  at  the 
door  of  the  heart :  but  after  conversion,  to  enter  the  inmost 
parts  of  the  house.  Secondly,  because  that  most  Holy  Rev.  3. 20. 
Spirit  now  dwells  in,  and  as  it  were  fixes  His  seat  in  the 
soul,  which  before  He  had  only  visited,  and  prepared  by  His 
preventing  grace  for  a  habitation  for  Himself,  never  to 
depart  thence  unless  driven  out  by  some  grievous  sin ;  and 
even  should  that  ever  happen,  ready  willingly  to  return  if 


254  and  so  represented  in  Holy  Scripture. 

s  E  C  T.  only  recalled  by  serious  and  timely  repentance.     These  are 

^— not   the   dreams   of  innovators^  but   the  truth  itself  most 

clearly  handed  down  to  us  in  the  Holy  ScrijDtures,  which  as 
they  every  where  and  in  most  clear  expressions  place  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  after  faith  and  repentance,  and  teach 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  infused  except  into  souls  abeady 
well  prepared  and  disposed,  so  do  they  attribute  faith  as  well 
as  repentance,  in  terms  equally  clear,  to  Di\ine  grace.  I  beg 
my  reader  to  read,  not  superficially,  but  with  attentive  and 
serious  examination,  the  following  passages  of  Scripture : — 
Prov.  i.  23 ;  Isa.  Ivii.  15,  and  Ixvi.  1,  2 ;  Luke  xi.  9,  13 ; 
John  xiv.  17—23;  Acts  ii.  38,  and  v.  32;  Gal.  iii.  14; 
Eph.  i.  13;  1  Pet.  v.  5;  Rev.  iii,  20;  compared  with 
John  vi.  44;  Acts  xvi.  14;  Eph.  ii.  8;  2  Tim.  ii.  25. 

This  gift  however  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  posterior  to 
faith,  repentance,  and  even  to  justification,  does  not  create  (and 
this  is  of  great  consequence)  new  habits  of  virtue  in  a  man, 
but  only  confirms,  strengthens,  invigorates,  increases,  and  at 
length  improves  into  sohd  habits,  those  more  imperfect 
dispositions  to  ^drtue  which  had  been  before  produced  by 
means  of  preventing  grace,  and  which  we  said  were  comprised 
under  the  names  of  Faith  and  Repentance.  For  true  repent- 
ance (inasmuch  as  it  includes  the  fear  of  God,  love  to  God, 
though  somewhat  imperfect,  hatred  of  sin,  love  of  righteous- 
ness,  &c.)  has  in  it  the  seeds  of  all  vu'tues,  which  afterwards, 
being  more  richly  watered  on  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
grow  up  into  the  harvest  of  virtue  and  good  works ;  whence 
all  good  works  which  come  from  a  man  already  justified  are 
i^ioi  Kap-  spoken  of  in  Holy  Writ  as  "  worthy  fruits,^^  "  works  meet  for 
Ipya  T^s  repentance."  But  since  the  Holy  Spirit  increases  in  various 
fitravolas.  ways  (of  wliich  it  belongs  not  here  to  speak)  those  previous 
Acts2c!20.  good  dispositions  in  the  justified  man :  j^et  amongst  those 
ways,  this  seems  to  be  conspicuous,  (to  use  the  words  of  a  vcry 
learncd  man,)  that  eflicacious  and  powerfiil  Impression  of  the 
Divine  favour  on  the  mind,  by  which  the  liearts  of  the  faith- 
ful,  already  imbued  with  the  hopes  of  everlasting  life  which 
they  have  gained  from  the  words  of  the  covenant,  are  often- 
times  so  mcrcifully  and  sweetly  affected  and  possessed  with  a 
surer  sense  of  this  hopc,  as  if  they  already  tasted  and  per- 
ceived  in  some  way  the  powers  of  the  world  to  come,  and  in 


Dr.  Tally  virtually  denies  necessity  of  good  works.     255 

some  degree  were  enjoying  their  promised  reward.    Our  love  s  E  c  T. 

to  God  is  wonderfully  kindled  by  this  sense  of  His  Divine — — 

favoiu",  and  to  love^  especially  ardent  love,  notliing  in  virtue 
is  difficult.  These  things  are  piain  and  easy,  as  far  as  the 
sublimity  of  tlie  subjeet  allows  :  but  as  to  Dr.  Tully's  philo- 
sopliizings  about  the  simple  and  instantaneous  Infusion  of  all 
the  virtues  at  once,  neither  he  nor  any  one  eise  will  ever  be 
able  to  explain  them  intelligibly.  But  to  return  from  our 
digression. 

§  5.  Dr.  Tully  proceeds :  "And  in  the  third  place,"  he 
says,  "  we  will  not  moot  the  controversy  whether  good  works 
are  necessary  to  salvation,  so  long  as  tliey  are  in  their  proper 
place,  and  on  their  true  foundation,"  &c.  But  why  has  he 
not  here  (which  was  the  riglit  place)  explained  this  measure, 
place,  Order,  and  foundation,  according  to  which  he  confesses 
that  good  works  are  really  necessary  to  salvation  ?  Surely 
because  he  could  not,  with  safety  to  his  own  hypothesis. 
For  those  elegant  similes  and  metaphors  which  he  so  greatly 
delights  in,  plainly  liave  nothing  to  do  with  the  subjeet. 
"For  building  a  house,"  he  says,  "the  assistance  of  each 
labourer  is  necessary,  but  not  so  necessary  as  that  of  the 
architect."  "  There  is  need  of  the  handmaid  in  the  house, 
who  however,  if  she  insolently  act  as  mistress  of  the  house, 
must  be  driven  out  with  Hagar."  Just  as  if  any  of  us 
had  dared  to  assign  the  architect's  plan  in  building  the  house 
of  our  salvation,  or  that  of  mistress  of  a  family  in  ordering 
the  arrangements  in  the  same  work,  to  our  good  works  and 
not  to  DiAine  grace  and  the  merits  of  Christ,  It  is  grievous 
to  have  to  refute  so  often  such  a  manifest  calumny :  it  mll 
satisfy  us,  if  Dr.  Tully  shall  acknowledge,  without  deceit  or 
false  colour,  any  true  use  of  good  works  necessary  for  ob- 
taining  salvation,  (be  it  such  as  that  of  a  handmaid  serving 
the  mistress  of  the  family  in  the  house,)  and  does  not  esteem 
true  holiness  as  Hagar,  and  altogether  cast  it  out.  But,  I 
ask,  what  kind  of  necessity  of  good  works  does  he  acknow- 
ledge who  does  not  hesitate  to  grant  to  a  man  who  only  be- 
lieves,  before  every  good  work,  even  internal,  the  riglit  to 
salvation,  and  that  too  irrevocable?  Does  he  say  that  good 
works  are  necessary  only  as  signs  of  true  and  saving  faith  ? 
But  this  necessity  has  respect  to  men,  not  to  God,  Whose 


256 


No  renl  justification  before  men. 


SECT. 
III. 


Answ.  to 

Strict. 

XIII. 


omniscience  tloes  not  stand  in  need  of  these  signs  and  proofs. 
Or  does  he  call  them  tlie  necessaiy  efFects  of  trne  faitli  ?  But 
Dr.  Tully  vrill  do  a  great  thing  and  worthy  of  himself  if  he 
will  teil  iis  of  any  faith,  which  is  merely  faith,  and  which  does 
not  include  love  in  its  notion^  whence  good  Avorks  necessarily 
spring.  I  know  füll  well  that  he  cannot  do  tliis.  But  I  wish, 
all  prejudice  and  pride  being  laid  aside,  that  the  reverend 
gentleman  would  read  the  füll  explanation  of  faith  as  I  have 
given  it  in  my  Examen ;  or  if  he  despises  my  writings,  let 
him  consult  the  illustrious  Hammond,  (and  there  is  no  dis- 
grace  in  applying  to  such  a  master,)  in  his  posthumous  tract 
on  the  Agreement  of  St.  James  and  St.  Paul,  annexed  to 
another  on  the  Eternity  of  Hell  Torments,  which  is  almost 
entirely  taken  up  in  refnting  this  error. 

§  6.  Dr.  Tully  goes  on.  "  Nor  fourthly,  is  there  any 
controversy  whether  in  a  declaratoiy  sense  a  man's  justifica- 
tion is  to  be  attributed  to  his  good  works,  whether  in  his 
own  heart  and  at  the  tribunal  of  conscience,  or  abroad  before 
others ;  for  a  tree  is  known  by  its  fruits."  Excellent  advice 
indeed !  as  if  forsooth  any  one  in  his  senses  would  suspect 
that  in  the  question  of  the  declaratory  justification  of  a  man, 
(as  it  is  called,)  whether  at  the  tribunal  of  conscience  or 
before  others,  was  the  real  issue  of  the  controversy  between 
the  Doctor  and  his  opponents.  IVIeanwhile  I  am  ignorant 
how  Dr.  Tully  can  take  it  for  granted  that  a  man  is  justified 
abroad  before  men,  that  is  declared  just  by  his  good  works. 
Certainly  no  good  works  of  ours  meet  the  senses  of  other 
men,  besides  external  ones,  but  these  a  hypocrite,  most  re- 
moved  from  justifying  faith,  can  do  equalh^  as  well  as  a  true 
Christian ;  which  is  so  true  that  the  Apostle  plainly  teaches 

iCor.13.3.  US  that  a  man  may  perform  outwardly  the  most  heroic 
works,  as  giving  all  his  goods  to  the  poor,  and  undergoing 
martyrdom  for  Divine  truth,  who  is  plainly  destitute  of  true 
love,  and  so  of  justifying  faith.     For  the  answer  that  Dr. 

Just.  Paul.  Tully  in  another  place  makes  to  this,  that  the  tribunal  of 
man  is  fallible,  and  that  men  can  justify  the  wicked  and 
condemn  the  innocent,  but  that  civil  tribunals  do  the  sarae, 
and  3'et  do  not  cease  to  be  tribunals,  as  this  proves  a  fault  in 
the  judges,  but  takes  not  away  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  court — 
this,  I  sav,  is  of  no  weight.     For  neither  is  it  the  fault  of  the 


Tb  Kpiv6 
fXfVOV 


p.  148, 
140. 


Dr.  Tully's  explanation  of  tlie  point  at  issue.         257 

judges  that  men  do  not  judge  surely  concerning  tlie  good-  S  E  C  T. 
ness  of  otliers,  but  tlie  cause  is  tlie  want  of  a  Standard  by '— 


which  tliev  might  judge  surely  in  tbis  matter.  For,  in  fact, 
it  is  but  some  miserable  little  man  tbrusting  himself  into 
anotber's  tribunal  and  daring  to  pass  sentence  concerning 
another  man^s  conscience,  which  is  subject  only  to  the 
knowledsre  of  God.  We  mav  indeed  hope  well  of  the  in-  See  i  Cor. 
ternal  goodness  of  another,  but  this  is  not  to  pass  sen- 
tence. 

§  7.  Dr.  Tully  at  length  prepares  himself  to  explain  the 
very  issue  of  the  controversy.  "This  then/^  he  says,  "  is 
the  point  in  debate,  or  true  State  of  the  question,  (as  it  is  t^  Kpiv6- 
defended  by  the  reformed  Churches,)  namely,  what  that  is, 
at  the  sight  of  which,  or  for  the  sake  of  which,  God  receives 
into  a  State  of  grace  sinful  man,  a  child  of  wrath,  who  is  under 
the  curse  of  the  law,  absolves  him  from  that  cui'se,  and  then 
makes  him  an  heir  of  everlasting  life.  And  indeed  on  God's 
part  it  seems  agreed  that  it  is  the  merits  of  Christ  alone, 
in  which  the  Father  is  well  pleased.  The  difference  of  opinion 
arises  from  the  application  of  these  merits,  namely,  what 
that  is,  which,  by  application,  makes  this  inestimable  treasure 
ours.  Our  opponents  at  home  say,  with  the  Papists,  that  it 
is  'faith  and  works,^  we,  'faith  only,^  and  that  not  as  a 
work  of  man,  although  it  be  good,  but  as  apprehending, 
sealing  to  ourselves,  and  applying  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
alone,"  &c. 

There  are  many  points  here  deserving  answer :  but  I  will 
take  notice  of  three  only.  1.  The  Doctoi*'s  expression,  'seems 
to  be  agreed,'  concerning  the  merits  of  Christ  alone,  is  bad. 
Away  with  this  word  of  uncertainty.  It  not  only  '  seems' 
but  it  is  '  certain,'  that  we  admit  nothing  of  ours  as  merito- 
rious  in  the  work  of  justification  and  salvation.  2.  With  bis 
usual  candour  he  joins  as  it  were  in  wedlock  bis  opponents 
at  home  with  the  Papists :  though  he  knows  well  enougli 
that  the  parties  are  not  as  yet  agreed.  3.  With  regard  to 
the  question  itself,  excellently  indeed,  and  in  a  manner  quite 
becoming  a  Doctor  of  a  University,  does  he  explain  the 
point  at  issue,  or  true  state  of  the  question,  in  figurative  or  rb  xptvd- 
metaphorical  and  so  uncertain  expressions.  Thanks  be  to  ^*'''"' 
God  we  are  not  ignorant  what  this  'inestimable  treasure'  is: 


258  Formal  cause  of  justification,  remission, 

s  E  c  T.  but  we  are  in  doubt  how  it  is  applied,  namely,  wliether  by 

— — tbat  '  apprebending,  sealing,    applyiug/  be   means  tbe   re- 

quisite  condition  on  oiu-  part.  If  so,  we  firmly  assert  tbat 
tbe  Single  virtue  of  faitb  is  not  tbe  only  condition  laid  down 
for  US  in  tbe  Gospel  for  obtainiug  remission  or  justification, 
but  tbat  repentance  is  requisite  for  tbat  in  addition ;  and  we 
may  wait  in  vain  for  tbe  reverend  gentleman  to  give  any  solid 
answer  to  tbe  arguments  witb  wbicb  we  support  tbis  asser- 
tion.  But  if  be  means  any  tbing  eise,  deeper  tban  tbis^  would 
tbat  be  bad  leisure  to  explain  intelligibly  to  us  so  great  a 
mystery.  Tbus  far  we  bave  beard  Dr.  Tully.  But  I  appeal 
to  tbe  conscience  of  tbe  reader  wbetber  be  bas  profited  one 
jot  from  tbis  laboured  explanation  of  tbe  question.  Let  us 
see  wbetber  sometbing  more  definite  and  clearer  may  be 
drawn  from  tbese  innovators. 
irpovyov-  §  8.  Not  to  say  any  tbing  of  tbe  leading  cause  of  our  jus- 
^^"^  tification,  (for  all  Cbristians  alloAV  tbat  to  be  tbe  mercy  of 
God,)  reformers  are  agreed  concerning  its  formal  cause, 
namely,  tbat  it  consists  in  tbe  remission  of  sins,  and  accept- 
ation  of  a  man  to  eternal  salvation.  So  tbe  Augsburg  Con- 
fession  in  tbe  article  on  faitb,  baviug  brougbt  forward  very 
many  passages  of  St.  Paul  in  wbicb  be  speaks  of  tbe  justifi- 
cation of  man,  subjoins  :  "  Justification  in  tbese  passages  of 
St.  Paul  means,  remission  of  sins,  or  reconciliation,  or  impu- 
tation  of  rigbteousncss,  tbat  is,  acceptation  of  tbe  person." 
[p.i7.0xf.  In  bke  manner  our  Clmrch  in  tbe  Homily  on  Salvation,  part 
ed.  1840.]  ^YiQ  first,  almost  in  tbe  very  beginning :  wbere  after  it  bas 
stated  tbat  no  one  in  tbe  sigbt  of  God  is  perfectly  rigbteous 
and  quite  free  from  sin,  adds  :  "Tberefore  every  man  of  ne- 
cessity  is  constrained  to  seck  for  anotber  rigbteousncss  or 
justification  to  be  rcccived  at  God's  own  bands,  tbat  is  to 
say,  tbe  forgiveness  of  bis  sins  and  trespasses  in  sucb  tbings 
as  be  batb  ofiicnded.'^  It  explaius  it  more  fully  afterwards, 
wbere  it  tbus  describes  tbe  justification  of  infants  sealed  in 
Baptism,  and  dying  before  tbe  commission  of  actual  sin : 
tbat  "wasbed  from  sin"  (i.  e.  original)  "by  tbe  sacrifice  of 
Cbrist,  tbey  are  brougbt  to  God's  favour,  and  are  made  Ilis 
cbildren,  and  inberitors  of  His  kingdom  of  beaven.''  Tbere 
are  indeed  some  divines  amongst  tbe  reformed  wbo  make 
tbe  formal  cause  of  justification  consist  in  tbe  remission  of 


to  he  obtained  under  a  certain  condition.  259 

sins  alone;  but  tlieir  meaning,  as  explained  by  tliemselves,  SECT. 
difFers  only  in  word,  and  not  essentially  from  tlie  former. ' — 


For  tliey  say  that  tlie  remission  of  all  sins  requires  that  to 
whomsoever  God,  according  to  the  Gospel  covenant,  remits 
sinSj  lie  should  at  once  be  considered  righteous,  and  worthy 
of  the  reward  of  righteousness,  that  is,  eternal  life.  For  (say 
they)  since  sins  are  partly  of  commission,  when  some  com- 
mand  of  prohibition  is  violated,  partly  of  Omission,  when  a 
positive  command  is  neglected,  he  who  has  his  sins  of  either 
sort  remitted,  is  considered  perfectly  righteous,  and  so  worthy 
of  his  reward.  They  add,  that  füll  remission  is  of  all  punish- 
ment,  as  well  of  loss  as  of  sense :  and  therefore,  whosoever 
obtains  füll  remission,  has  restored  to  him  the  right  to  the 
eternal  kingdom  which  he  had  forfeited  through  sin  :  so  that 
here  there  is  but  a  question  of  words.  Refer,  however,  to  our  xoyofxaxia 
explanation  of  the  true  notion  of  justification  in  the  Examen, 
answers  to  Stricture  III.  and  IV. 

§  9.  Secondly,  all  the  reformed  are  agreed  (for  with  jus- 
tice we  erase   Socinians  from  the  list)  about  the   priraary  wpoKaT- 
meritorious  cause  of  our  justification,  that  it  is  only  to  be  °-p"-'^^'^v 
sought  in  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  our  Lord. 

§  10.  Thirdly,  it  is  agreed  upon  amongst  the  more  sound 
of  the  reformed  divines,  that  Christ  has  not,  by  His  own 
satisfaction,  obtained  remission  of  sins,  and  a  right  to  eternal 
salvation  for  us  '  absolutely,'  but  under  '  a  certain  condition' 
laid  down  in  the  new  covenant :  and  so  that  no  one  is  justi- 
fied  'immediately'  by  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  but  those  only 
who  shall  have  performed  this  condition.  Certainly  one  and 
all  of  the  confessions  of  the  reformed  Churches  agree  on  this 
point.  There  have  not  been  wanting,  I  know  füll  well,  cer- 
tain schismatical  pretenders  to  theology  amongst  us  (at  whose 
head  was  that  Crisp  whom  I  have  mentioned  elsewhere)  who 
have  dared  openly  to  teach  that  all  the  elect,  immediatcly 
from  the  death  of  Christ  and  even  from  eternity,  inasmuch  as 
the  death  of  Christ  was  seen  in  the  Divine  decree  as  accom- 
plished,  have  been  absolvcd  from  the  guilt  of  their  sins ;  and 
that  that  justification  which  takes  place  in  time,  and  is  so 
often  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures,  is  nothing  eise  but  a  cer- 
tain joyful  sense  or  perccption  of  justification  before  accom- 
plished  and  finishcd.     But  it  is  now  a  long  time  since  these 

s2 


260  TJiat  conditio)!,  faith  and  repentance, 

S  E  c  T.  dresrs  of  men  -with  tlieir  mad  doctrines  have  been  exploded 

III 
: —  from  amousrst  iis. 


§  11.  The  whole  controversy  therefore  is  concerning  tlie 
indispensable  cause,  or  sine  qua  non,  or  condition  ou  our  part, 
wbicli  is  requisite  for  justification.     In   sliort  tliis  is  really 

rh  Kptv6-  tlie  point  to  be  decided ;  on  tliis  the  question  turns ;  "  Under 
what  conditions  the  remission  of  sins  and  the  right  to  eternal 
salvation  are  promised  to  us  in  the  Gospel  covenant  V  Dr. 
Tully  saySj  under  the  condition  of  faith  alone,  as  a  single 
vü'tue;  we,  in  agreement  with  the  Prophets,  with  Christ,  His 
Apostles,  with  all  the  doctors  of  the  ancient  Churcli  Catholic, 
with  the  Fathers  of  our  own  Chui'ch,  with  the  more  sound  of 
the  reformed  di\ines,  constantly  assert  that  it  is  under  the 
condition  of  faith  and  repentance.  In  a  word,  the  sum  of 
our  doctrine,  as  I  have  said,  is  this  :  In  the  Gospel  covenant, 
procured  and  ratified  by  the  meritorious  satisfaction  of  Chi'ist 
our  Saviour,  remission  of  sins  and  a  right  to  eternal  salva- 
tion is  obtained  on  our  part  by  faith  and  repentance,  and 
these  Privileges  are  preserved  by  the  fruits  of  faith  and  re- 
pentance. Whoever  shaU  attend  to  this  explanation  of  the 
question,  will,  I  have  no  doubt,  wonder  how,  in  so  piain, 
easy,  and  clear  a  matter,  any  controversy,  not  to  say  one  so 
bitter,  could  have  arisen  amongst  divines  of  streng  judgment, 
and  lovers  of  peace  and  truth. 

§  12.  And  now,  in  a  few  words  to  bring  the  sum  of  this 
argument  to  a  point,  and  place  before  the  reader  the  whole 
controversy,  as  it  were,  at  one  view;  our  conclusion  to  be 
proved  against  the  Doctor  is  this;  that  besides  faith,  true 
repentance  is  also  required  by  the  Gospel  as  altogether 
necessary  for  any  one  to  obtain  remission  of  sins  and  a  right 
to  eternal  life.  To  support  this  position  we  do  not  heap 
together,  as  Dr.  Tully  supposes,  frivolous  straws  of  reasoii- 
ings  from  the  sacred  page  badly  understood,  but  we  make 
use  of  most  piain  passages  of  Scripture,  wliich  hardly  need 
any  deduction  of  consequences.  In  truth,  the  whole  Bible, 
from  beginning  to  end,  is  füll  of  proofs  which  most  clearly 
shew  the  necessity  of  true  repentance  for  obtaining  remission 
of  sins  or  justification.  From  so  great  a  number  it  will  be 
sufficient  to  give  some  of  the  most  remarkable :  the  voice  of 

Is.  1. 16—  the  Gospel  sounding  through  the  Gospel  Prophet  is,  "  Wash 

1 8. 


taught  throughout  Holy  Scripture.  261 

you,  make  you  clean ;  put  away  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  s  E  C  T, 

before  Mine  eyes ;  cease  to  do  evil ;  learn  to  do  well,  &c. ; 

Come  now  and  let  us  reason  together,  saith  tbe  Lord ;  tliough 
your  sins   be   as    scarlet   tbey  sball  be  as  wbite  as  snow : 
thougb  tbey  be  red  Hke   crimson,  tbey  sball  be  as  wool." 
Wbere  tbe  promise  of  remission  aunexed  to  tbe  command  of 
repentance  sbews  bow  great  is  tbe  necessity  and  efficacy  of 
tbe  one  to  obtain  tbe  otber.     But  wbat  ean  be  imagined 
plainer  tban  tbe  foUowing?     '^  But  if  tbe  wicked  will  turn  Ezek.  18. 
from  all  bis  sins  tbat  be  batb   committed,   and  keep  My     ~"  * 
Statutes,  and  do  tbat  wbicb  is  lawful  and  riglit,  be   sball 
surely  live,  be  sball  not  die.     All  bis  transgressions  tbat  be 
batb  committed,  tbey  sball  not  be  mentioned  unto  bim :  in 
bis  rigbteousness  tbat  be  batb  done  be  sball  live.     Have  I 
any  pleasure  at  all  tbat  tbe  wicked  sbould  die  ?  saitb  tbe  Lord 
God,  and  not  tbat  be  sbould  return  from  bis  ways  and  live  ?" 
And    again,   "Bepent    and   tui'n   yourselves  from    all   your  ver.30,3l. 
transgressions,  so  iniquity  sball  not  be  your  ruin,"  &c.     To 
tbese  may  be  added  Ezek.  xxxiii.  11 — 16.    In  tbe  New  Testa- 
ment it  is  Said  Jobn  Baptist  was  sent  by  God  "to  preacb  tbe  Marki.  4. 
baptism  of  repentance  for  remission  of  sins,"  wbere  tbe  end, 
and  means  conducing  to  it,  are  put  togetber :  tbe  end,  re- 
mission of  sins,  or  justification ;    tbe  means,  Baptism  and 
repentance.     He  tberefore  wbo  teacbes  tbat  man^s  sins  are 
remitted  before  be  truly  repents,  puts  tbe  end  in  execution 
before  tbe  existence  of  tbe  means ;  tban  wbicb  notbing  can 
be  more  absurd.     Hence  tbe  Lord  Jesus  said  to  His  disciples 
"  tbat  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  sbould  be  preacbed  Lu.  24. 
in  Ilis  name."     Having  tbis  in  bis  mind,  St.  Peter  preacbed     ' 
to  tbe  Jews  in  tbis  way ;  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  Acts  2. 38. 
one  of  you  in  tbe  name  of  Jesus  Clirist  for  tbe  remission  of 
sins:"  also,  "Bepent  tberefore,  and  be  converted,  tbat  your  Acts 3.19. 
sins   may  be  blotted  out,"   &c. :  so   also  to  Simon  Magus, 
"  llepent  tberefore  of  tbis  tby  wickedness,  aud  pray  God,  Acts  8. 22. 
if  perbaps  tbe  tbougbt  of  tbiue  beart  may  be  forgiven  tbee." 
Lastly,  tbe  Apostlc  St.  Jobn,  "If  we  confess  our  sins,  IIc  is  iJoh.  ].9. 
faitbful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  clcause  us  from 
all  unrigbteousness."     AVbere  by  synecdocbe  all  Interpreters 
are  agrced  tbat  in  tbe  Avord  '  confession,'  tbe  wbolc  of  re- 
pentance is  iucluded,  and  tbe  Apostle  saitb  as  mucb  in  ver.  7. 


262  Dr.  Tully's  sophistry  refuted. 

s  E  c  T.  of  tlie  same  chapter.     Now  the  reader  may  judge  whether 
we,  Avlio  establisli  our  opinion  by  so  many  clear  passages 


from  Scriptui'e,  (to  which  we  might  add  many  more  no  less 
clear,)  can  be  rightly  charged  with  baving  collected  frivolous 
straws  of  insignificant  reasonings  from  misinterpretations  of 
tbe  sacred  volume. 

§  13.  But  what  does  Dr.  Tully  bring  against  these  clear 
and  manifest  arguments?  Certainly  not  frivolous  straws  of 
insignificant  reasonings,  but  one  miserable  little  bit  of  sophis- 
try, than  wliicb  not  even  chaff  itself  is  lighter.  Thus  he 
argues  against  the  constant  doctrine  of  the  Prophets,  of 
Christ  and  His  Apostles,  of  Doctors,  Churches,  old  and  new, 
Justif.  of  foreign  ones,  in  fact  of  all.  "  If  true  and  evangelical 
JQ2  '  ^'  repentanee  be  placed  before  justification,  then  it  is  eitlier 
before  faith  or  after :  if  after  faith,  then  also  after  justifica- 
tion; otherwise  a  faithful  man  will  not  be  justified,  and  in 
reality  will  be  in  the  same  condition  as  an  iufidel,  which 
reason  (even  that  of  our  opponents)  will  not  allow.  If  this 
repentanee  be  placed  before  faith,  then  faith  will  not  be  the 
root  and  beginning  of  repentanee,"  &c.  Forsooth,  the  reve- 
rend  gentleman  presses  us  here  with  a  dilemma,  but  a  weak 
one  indeed,  and  useless,  inasmuch  as  it  is  clearly  bad  in  one 
of  its  horns,  as  it  is  called ;  for  we  affirm,  without  fear,  that 
true  and  evangelical  repentanee,  or  change  of  heart,  ought  to 
be  placed  after  belief  of  the  Gospel;  since  it  is  not  possible 
that  he  can  repent  according  to  the  Gospel,  who  has  not  first 
believed  in  the  Gospel.  And  yet,  says  Dr.  Tully,  if  repent- 
anee be  placed  after  faith,  therefore  after  justification  also. 
We  deny  the  consequence :  how  does  he  prove  it  ?  by  an 
absurd  argument;  because  otherwise  it  might  follow  that 
a  faithful  man  is  not  yet  justified,  and  so  is  in  the  same 
condition  as  an  infidel.  There  is  a  palpable  equivocation  in 
this  Word  '  faithful.'  Faithful  means  two  things ;  either  a 
man  who  has  faith  perfected  by  love,  or  one  who  is  endued 
indeed  with  faith,  but  not  as  yet  with  such  a  faith  which 
penetrates  powerfully  into  his  heart  and  will,  and  so  elicits 
true  love  towards  God.  If  the  word  be  taken  in  the  former 
sense  we  again  deny  the  consequence.  For  from  rejecting 
this  proposition,  "  if  repentanee  is  to  be  placed  after  faith  as 
a  Single  virtue,  therefore  after  justification  also,"  it  does  not 


Tivofold  sense  of  the  word  'faithful.^  263 

follow  that  it  is  possible  that  a  faithful  man,  that  is,  one  s  E  c  T. 
endued  with  perfected  faith,  is  not  yet  justified ;  since  per-  — - — '■ — 
fected  faith  comprehends  in  its  meaning  true  and  evangelical 
repentance;    but  if  tlie  word   be  understood  in  the  latter 
sense,  namely,  that  he  is  called  faitliful  who  is  endued  with 
faith  not  yet  perfected  by  love,  and  which  has  not  yet  pro- 
duced  true  repentance  in  a  man,  then  this  proposition,  "It 
is  possible  for  a  faithful  man  to  be  not  yet  justified/'  is  so 
far  from  having  any  thing  absurd  in  it,  that  it  is  a  most 
certain  truth — yea,  this  is  the  very  thing  we  are  contending 
for,  and  have  just  abundantly  established  by  proofs  brought 
from  Scripture,  and  many  other  arguments.     Here,  then,  is 
a  piain   case    of  begging   the    question,   "than  which,"   as 
Dr.  Tully  elsewhere  observes,  "  there  is  hardly  any  other  Justif, 
more  troublesome  kiud  of  bad  reasouing;  for  this  is  not  to  140  ^ 
argue,  but  to  trifle,  and  to  waste  valuable  time."     And  thus 
far  on  the  State  of  the  question. 


SECTION  IV. 

ON  CHAPTER  IL— CONCERNING  THE  OPINION  OF 
THE  FATHERS. 

Dr.  Tully  here  for  the  first  time  attacks  the  author  of  the 
Harmony  by  name ;  but,  alas  !  how  unsuccessfully. 

For  after  mentioning  this  author,  in  a  few  lines  below,  he 
adds,  "  We  have  him  boastiug  that  all  the  ships  in  the  Pii-aeus  Justif. 
are  his;  that  almost  all  the  Fathers  before  St.  Augustine  13.^'^' 
are  on  his  side  about  the  righteousness  of  works.  I  cannot 
teil  who  has  imposed  upon  him,  unless  it  be  some  popish 
writer.  Certainly  it  is  quite  plaiu  that  when  he  was  writing 
these  words  he  was  but  little  acquainted  with  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers  V  Who  would  not  believe  that  I  had  really  said 
all  this,  especially  when  the  hcading  of  the  chapter  is,  "  Won- 
derful  boastings  of  the  Author  of  the  Harmonia  Apostolica 
concerning  the  Fathers  V  But  alas  for  the  credit  and  con- 
scicnce  of  the  mau !  the  rcader  may  go  through  the  whole 
of  my  Ilarmony,  from  beginning  to  end,  and  hc  will  find 
nothing  of  the  sort.  Aud  so  Dr.  Tully  has  ncither  given  in 
the  text  or  margiu  either  the  chapter,  paragraph,  or  page, 


264  Appeal  to  the  Fathers. 

S  E  C  T.  where  I  had  -oTitten  this.     I  do  not  denv  that  I  am  qiiite 
jDersuaded  that  tlie  rigliteousness  of  works^  such  as  I  defend, 


■was  upheld  also  not  only  by  the  majority,  but  by  all  the 
Fathers  before  St.  Augustiue^  nay,  and  by  St.  Augustine 
himself,  and  likewise  by  all  Catholics  after  him;  but  that  I 
ever  said  this  in  my  Harmony  I  entirely  deny.  Is  this  the 
honesty  which  the  reverend  gentleman  professes,  and  an 
example  of  which  he  wished  to  shew  bis  opponents  ? 

§  2.  But  how  is  he  so  certain  that  when  I  wrote  the  Har- 
mony I  Tras  but  little  versed  in  the  Fathers?  Perhaps  he 
learnt  this  from  those  trustworthy  persons  whom  he  meutions 
in  his  Preface.  I  confess  most  willingly  that  all  I  do  is  but 
moderate :  but  it  is  clear  that  the  Doctor  meant,  that  at 
that  time  I  was  a  mere  novice  in  the  writings  of  antiquity. 
But  how,  I  say,  does  he  know  this  ?  In  another  place  the 
Justif.  reverend  gentleman  gives  the  Harmonist  unasked  for  praise 
Paul.  p.  £qj.  {^ijiiity  and  industrv.  Now  I  can  confidentlv  assert  that 
for  five  years  before  he  could  be  called  Harmonist,  or  had 
written  his  Harmony,  he  had  given  almost  all  his  ability  and 
industry,  after  the  study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  reading 
the  Avorks  of  the  Fathers,  and  of  those  especially  who 
flourished  in  the  three  first  centuries.  For  by  the  adAdce  of 
a  very  great  man  whose  memory  he  cherishes  with  honour, 
he  tlius  commeuced  his  theological  studies :  and  would  that 
he  were  worthy  enough  to  advise  the  caudidates  in  sacred 
theology  of  our  üniversities  (notwithstanding  Dr.  Tully's 
Opposition)  to  do  the  same. 

§  3.  But  it  is  not  hard  to  see  with  Avhat  design  Dr.  Tully 
should  have  charged  the  Harmonist  with  this  ■wonderful 
boasting,  as  he  calls  it,  about  the  Fathers.  He  "wanted  to 
fasten  this  reproach  on  his  opponent's  view,  namely,  that  it 
was  new,  and  repugnant  to  the  consent  of  the  ancient 
Catholic  Church,  and  he  considered  it  necessary  for  his 
purposc  to  attributc  expressions  to  liim  which  might  give 
him  the  opportunity  of  discussing  the  opinion  of  the  Fathers 
on  this  point.  But  however  this  may  be,  we  are  so  far  from 
avoiding  this  venerable  tribunal  of  ancient  doctors,  that  we 
take  refuge  there  most  willingly  and  joyfuUy,  as  in  our  own 
asylum.  And  since  the  reverend  gentleman  appeals  to  the 
Fathers,  to  the  Fathers  he  shall  go. 


They  speak  offaith  only  in  its  complex  sense.         265 

S  4.  Now  we  assert  tliis  of  the  Fathers  srenerallv  :  tliat  in  S  E  C  T. 

.     . '    .                    IV 
all  those  places  wliere  they  teach  that  mau  is  justified  by '- — 

faith  alone,  they  are  not  speaking  of  faith  as  a  single  vu-tue, 

but  of  faith  in  its  complex  meaning,  or  of  faith  perfected, 

and  joined  Avith  true  internal  contrition  and  loA^e ;  as  faith  is 

opposed^  Ist,  to  external  works,  or  the  actual  righteousness  of 

works ;  or  2ndlyj  to  works  of  the  natural  law,  done  before  and 

without  the  knowledge,  belief,  and  grace  of  the  Gospel;  or 

3rdly,  to  the  works  of  the  Mosaic  law ;  or  lastly,  to  meritori- 

ous  works  of  whatever  description  of  which  man  miglit  boast 

before  God.     And  to  this  purpose  the  testimonies  of  some 

ancient  writers  are  rightly  and  aptly  brought  forward  by  the 

author  of  the  Homily  on  Salvation.     But  with  regard  to  the 

Doctor,  (to  give  him  back  his  own  words,)  "  although  in  this  P-  ^^• 

controversy,  wheu  there    are    so   raany   ancient    Champions 

and  leaders  standing  against  him,  he  does  not  scorn  com- 

rades,  nay,  he  anxiously  courts  them,  if  by  any  means  there 

might  be  an  opening  for  enlisting  them  in  his  own  service, 

yet  unhappily  for  him,  no  one  comes  to  his  assistance,  and 

he  labours  in  vain  to  drag  them  on  though  they  struggle 

against  him/^     We  have  heard  him  explaining  his  opinion  as 

opposed  to  ours  in  such  a  way  as  to  assert  that  a  man  is 

justified  by  faith  as  a  single  Adrtue  before  all  true  contrition 

or  repentance;  that  a  wicked  man  is  justified,  that  is,  has 

Ins  sins  remitted,  and  he  himself  accounted  as  received  into 

a  State  of  salvation,  while  he  is  still  wicked,  &c.     Now  if 

the  reverend  gentleman  can  bring  forward  even  one  of  the 

Fathers  who  has  ever  in  his  writings  put  forth  such  a  perni- 

cious  opinion  as  this,  we  will  yield  the  day  to  him.     So  far 

from  the  truth  is  Dr.  Tully^s  assertion,  that  "the  Fathers  in  P-  ^^• 

this    controversy  constantly    and    openly  profess   the   same 

opinion  with  himself.^^     But  now  let  us  hear  the  Fathers 

themselves. 

§5.  Irenseus    concerning  Abraham,   says,   "For   he   had^^-^'^-^ 

Icarned  frora  the  word  of  the  Lord  and  believed  on  Him,  233.] 

wherefore  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness  by  the 

Lord :  for  faith  which  is  in  the  Most  High  God,  justifies  a 

man."     I  hear  indeed  the  words  of  the  excellent  Father,  but 

we  still  want  his  meaning.     Let  him  be  his  own  interpreter; 

uor  have  we  far  to  seek  for  the  interpretation,  for  in  the 


266  St.  Irencms. 

s  E  c  T.  chapter  immediately  following  of  the  same  book  he  says, 
^^-      "For  tliis  end  the  Father  revealed  the  Son,  that  through 


'-^'  "-^  Hirn,  He  might  be  made  manifest  to  all  men^  and  that  He 
might  receive  those  who  believe  &c.,  into  eternal  rest.  But 
to  believe  on  Him^  is  to  do  His  will/^  Who  in  his  senses 
would  separate  justifieation  fi'om  such  a  faith  as  this?  We 
must  also  here  repeat  those  passages  from  this  same  book 

[c.  xiii.  p.  of  Irenseus  eh.  xxvii.  wliich  we  have  ab'eady  qnoted  in  the 

242  T 

Answerto  Examen^  where  these  two,  "to  be  justified  by  the  natural 
stricture    -^yorks  of  the  law,"  and  "  to  be  justified  by  faith/'  are  put  by 

XII.  6.  •11         •  1  •      1 

Ido^vva-     him  side  by  side  as  equivaients. 

FiiiTv  1  §  ^'  -^^^^  i^  Origen,  (the  first  of  those  Fathers  whom 
iv.p.  51Ö.]  Dr.  Tully  cites  as  witnesses  to  his  view,)  who  in  the  third 
book  of  his  commentary  on  the  Romans,  if  we  may  trust 
Eufinus  his  translator,  thus  writes :  "  The  Apostle  says  the 
justifieation  of  faith  only  is  sufficient,  so  that  any  one  if  he 
believes  is  justified  though  he  have  performed  no  work." 
The  answer  to  this  is  easy,  for  Origen  is  plainly  speaking  of 
faith  perfected  inwardly  by  the  other  virtues,  as  it  is  opposed 
to  the  Performance  of  external  works.  This  is  clear  both 
i.e.Origen.  from  the  words  of  Adamantius,  "though  he  have  performed 
no  work/'  as  also  from  the  example  presently  given  of  the 
thief  who  believed,  who  certainly  did  not  obtain  justifieation 
without  the  internal  virtues  of  the  heart.  Origen  however 
more  fully  explains  his  opinion  on  this  point  in  the  fouirth 
[§  1.  p.  book  of  the  same  commentaries  on  Rom.  iv.,  where  he  has  the 
'*'■  ■-'  following :  "  But  wlien  I  return  to  the  Scriptures,  I  do  not 
find  that  faith  is  counted  to  all  bclievers  for  righteousness ; 
lastly,  it  is  written  of  the  children  of  Israel,  '  that  they  be- 
lieved  the  Lord  and  His  servant  Moses/  but  it  is  not  said 
as  of  Abraham,  that  it  was  counted  to  them  for  righteous- 
ness :  '  on  this  account  I  cousider  that  there  was  not  in  them, 
as  we  have  sliewn  to  have  been  in  Abraham,  that  pcrfection 
of  faith,  collccted  from  many  parts  and  gathercd  into  one, 
Avhich  is  worthy  to  be  counted  for  righteousness.'  "  Shortly 
aftcrwards  he  saj^s :  "  His  f\iith  who  believes  on  Him  who 
justifics  the  wickcd  is  counted  for  righteousness,  if  Ave  re- 
mcmber  that  wliich  we  have  sliewn  above,  that  not  his  faith 
Avho  only  partially  believes,  but  who  believes  entirely  and 
perfectly,  can  be  counted  for  righteousness;  which  faith  is 


Origen.  267 

such  that  it  justifies  even  him  who  was  wicked^  so  that  he  s  E  C  T. 

is  no  longer  wicked  like  the  thief  who  hung  upon  the  cross VL 

and  blasphemed,  but  is  like  him  who  confessed  and  said, 
*  Lord  Jesus  remember  me  when  Thou  comest  into  Thy 
kingdom/  "  "Wliat  can  be  plainer  tlian  this  ?  In  his  thü-d 
Homily  on  Leviticus,  where  he  is  explaiuing  allegorically  [vol.  ü.  p. 
the  law  of  Moses,  just  at  the  end,  he  says,  "  Is  this  then  '^ 
the  moderation  of  the  law  given,  that  except  a  man  has  a 
certain  sum  of  money,  his  sin  caunot  be  absolved  ?  Which 
if  taken  according  to  the  letter  is  plainly  absurd :  but  in 
its  Spiritual  meaning  it  is  certain  that  no  one  can  receive 
remission  of  sins,  unless  he  bring  an  entire,  honest  and  holy 
faith,  by  which  he  may  purchase  the  lamb  whose  natui'e  is 
to  wash  away  the  sins  of  him  that  believes.  And  this  is  the 
holy  shekelj  an  approved  (as  we  have  said)  and  a  sincere 
faith  :  that  is,  where  no  deceit  of  infidelity,  no  perverse  crafti- 
ness  of  heresy  is  mingled,  so  that  bringing  this  true  faith  we 
may  be  thoroughly  washed  in  the  precious  blood  of  Christ  as 
an  immaculate  rictim/'  But  if  any  one  does  not  yet  under- 
stand  what  Origen  means  by  "  the  perfection  of  faith  gathered 
from  many  parts  into  one/'  which  aloue  is  worthy  to  be  ac- 
counted  for  righteousness :  what  is  that  entire,  honest,  holy 
faith,  in  which  there  is  no  deceit  of  iufidelity,  and  without 
which  there  is  no  remission  of  sins :  what,  in  short,  is  that 
sincere  faith,  which,  if  we  ofFer  to  God,  we  are  washed  in  the 
blood  of  Christ :  let  him  go  to  that  most  explicit  passage 
of  an  undoubted  work  of  Origen's,  against  Celsus,  where  Hb.  iü. 
Celsus,  ha^ing  attributed  this  absurd  opinion  to  the  Chris-  154  [-§■ 
tians,  namely,  "  that  as  some  are  overcome  by  pity,  so  God  7i.p.49'i.] 
through  pity  assists  the  bad,  but  despises  on  this  account  the 
good  who  happen  to  be  without  this  aflFection."  Origen  in 
the  name  of  the  Christians  thus  answers  him.  "According 
to  our  view,  God  assists  no  bad  man  unless  he  be  akeady 
turned  to  \ärtue,  as  also  He  nevcr  rejects  the  man  that  is 
already  good ;  nor  does  He  on  account  of  thcir  appcaling  to 
pity,  relieve  or  pity  any  one  (to  use  the  word  pity  in  a 
common  meaning)  but  those  who  condcmn  thcir  sins  with 
their  wholc  heart,  and  who  bewail  and  lament  over  themselves 
as  justly  destroyed  for  their  misdeeds,  and  who  bring  with 
them  such  a  change  as  bccomes  penitents ;  thesc,  at  length, 


268  St.  Cyprian. 

s  E  c  T.  for  the  sake  of  their  change  of  heart  He  forgives,  even  those 


IV 


reforraed  from  tlie  worst  life.  This  virtue^  whicli  lias  taken 
tlie  place  of  vices  now  driveii  from  their  heart,  obtaius  for 
them  that  their  passed  sius  shonld  be  forgotten."  How 
iiulike  is  all  this  to  the  teiiets  of  Dr.  Tully_,  who  teaches  that 
a  man  is  justified,  by  I  know  not  what  manner  of  faith, 
before  he  is  really  coutrite;  that  a  -^icked  man  is  justified 
while  he  still  remains  uicked  !  And  yet  Origeu  in  the  same 
place  plainly  testifies  that  the  view  which  he  was  explaining 
was  the  common  one  of  all  Catholics  in  his  own  age,  with 
avoriTois  the  exception  of  some  senseless  persons.  To  tliese  might  be 
added,  if  it  were  necessary,  certain  passages  in  which  Origen 
plainly  teaches  that  some  good  works  are  necessarily  required 
[xxiii.  20.  for  man^s  justification,  snch  as  a  passage  in  Tract.  25  on 
8^3j"*  ^'  St.  Matthew.  "  In  our  conversations  there  are  certain  chief 
things  necessary  for  the  justification  of  our  souls,  such  as 
these  weighty  matters  of  the  law,  judgment,  mercy,  and 
faith."     But  enough  has  been  quoted  from  Origen. 

§  7.  Let  US  pass  from  Origen  to  Cyprian.     In  the  third 

in  totum    book  to  Quirinus,  he  teaches  that  "  faith  avails  for  every 

ch!42!ral  thing/'    (as    Pamelius    reads,  or  '^only^^    as  the  Erasmean 

Testim.     MSS.,)  "and  that  we  are  able  to  do  in  proportion  as  we 

dc-eös,  j).     believe."     But  read  the  chapter  which  immediately  follows, 

^^^•J         and  you  will  soon  see  Cyprian^s  meaning.     The  words  are, 

"He  can  immediately  obtain  it"  (namely,  Baptism)  "who  truly 

believes.     In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  '  See,  here  is  water : 

what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ?'  and  Philip  said,  '  If 

thou  bclievcst  with  all  thine  heart  thou  mayest.^  "  So  Cyprian 

is  speaking  of  one  mIio  believes  truly,  and  from  his  whole 

heart,  and  whoni  he  affirras  can  obtain  salvation  by  Baptism, 

before  he  shall  have  performcd  any  actual  righteousness  of 

good  works :    but    who    ever  drcamed   that  Cyprian  meant 

that  any  one  could  obtain  remission  of  sins  or  justification 

before  he  truly  repents,  surely  such  an  one  mnst  be  a  mere 

novice  in  the  writings  of  the  excellent  Father.     For  he,  if 

any  one,  every  where  declarcs,  in  a  Avonderful  way,  and,  as 

some  have  thought,  immoderately,  both  the  necessity  and 

eflficacy  of  repentance  for  obtaining  remission  of  sins.     I  will 

edit.  Ta-    quotc  ouc  or  two  passages  on  this  jioint.     Thus  concerning 

[p!i9Ö-i.i  the  lapsed :  "  I  cntreat  you,  most  dear  brethreu,  let  each 


St.  Hilary.     St.  Basil.  269 

confess  bis  sin  while  the  sinner  is  yet  among  tlie  living,  &c.   s  E  c  T. 
Let  US  turn  to  the  Lord  with  the  whole  heart ;    and  call ^ — 


down  the  mercy  of  God,  by  expressing  repentance  for  oiu" 
offence  by  genuine  grief.  Before  Hirn  let  the  soul  be  laid 
prostrate^  with  Him  let  our  sadness  gain  peace,  on  Hirn  all 
our  hope  be  leant.  How  we  ouglit  to  eutreat  Him  Himself 
teaches  us.  '  Turn  ye  even  to  Me  with  all  yom^  heart  and  Joel  2. 12. 
with  fasting,  and  with  weepiug  and  with  mourning  :  and 
rend  your  heart  and  not  your  garments/  To  the  Lord  let 
US  return  with  all  our  heart.  Let  us  appease  His  wrath  and 
displeasui'e  with  fastings,  with  weepings,  and  with  mourn- 
ing." So  in  his  sixty-fifth  Epistle  he  teaches  that  "  crimes  [p.  85.] 
are  done  away  with  by  proper  satisfactions  and  lamentations, 
and  wounds  are  washed  away  by  tears."  Lastly,  to  the  here- 
tic  Novatian,  towards  the  end ;  "  Whilst  the  door  of  indul- 
gence,  brethren,  is  open,  let  us  implore  God  with  füll  satis- 
factions.    Let  US  humble  ourselves  that  we  may  be  exalted." 

§  8.  Hilary  follows^  who  in  the  eighth  cauon  on  St.  Mat-  [p.  G46.] 
thew  expressly  says  that  '  faitli  alone  justifies ;'  but  let  the 
whole  passage  be  quoted,  and  it  will  be  clear  how  far  it  is 
from  helping  the  Doctor's  cause.  Hilarj^,  in  treating  of 
the  paralytic  whom  Christ  had  healed^  and  whose  sins  He 
had  remitted,  says;  "^'The  Scribes  were  indignant  that  a 
man  should  remit  sins ;  for  in  Jesus  Christ  they  beheld  but 
a  mere  man ;  and  that  which  the  law  had  not  been  able  to 
loose  was  remitted  by  Him :  for  faith  alone  justifies."  Now 
it  is  quite  clear  that  he  opposes  faith  to  the  Älosaic  law, 
which  too  is  also  clearer  in  the  ninth  canon,  where  we  have  [p.  618.] 
these  words  :  "  No  one  is  righteous  by  the  law.  He  shews, 
then,  that  the  boasting  of  righteousness  was  useless ;  for  in 
addition  to  weak  sacrifices,  mercy  is  necessary  to  those 
placed  under  the  law  for  salvation.  For  if  righteousness 
had  been  by  the  law,  pardon  through  grace  had  not  been 
necessary." 

§  9.  Let  US  now  hear  the  great  Basil.  He  tlius  speaks  in 
his  twenty-second  Ilomily  on  Humility' :  "  For  this  is  that 
perfect  and  cntire  glorying  in  God  when  a  mau  is  not  puffed 
up  on  account  of  his  own  righteousness,  but  acknowledges 
that  he  is  destitute  of  true  righteousness,  and  that  he  is  jus- 

*  Tom.  i.  p.  473.  edit.  Paris  1G38.  [Hom.  xx.  3.  vol.  ii.  j).  158.] 


270  Faith  and  Baptism  inseparable. 

s  E  c  T.  tified  only  by  faitli  in  Christ."     But  it  is  piain  fii'om  what 

^^'      presently  follows,  that  only  meritorious  works  are  excluded 

by  Basil,  from  wliich  boastiug  might  arise,  or  a  rigliteousness 

absolute  and  entü'ely  perfect,  wliich  a  man  could  do  by  his 

own  strength,  -svitliout  needing  pardon,  or  the   aid  of  the 

Holy  Spirit.     "  Here,"  he  presently  proceeds,  "  has  all  the 

loftiness  of  pride  fallen :  nothing  is  now  left  for  boasting  to 

thee,  O  man,  whose  glorying  and   hope    consists   in   mor- 

tifying  thy  whole  ^vill,  and  in  seeking  for  the  future  life  in 

Christ,  by  the  possession  of  the  foretaste  of  whieh  we  are 

already  in  those  things  wholly  li\-ing  in  the  grace  and  gift 

of  God.     And  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  ns  both  to  will  and 

to    do    according  to   His   good   pleasure/'  &c.     Read  what 

follows.     From  others  of  his  writings  too  it  is  qiüte  certain 

that  it  never  entered  BasiPs  mind  that  man  was  justified  by 

faith  as  a  siugle  \'irtue  alone,  that  is,  had  remission  of  sius 

given  him,  and  accounted  as  accepted  for  salvation  before 

true  repentance.     For  he  expressly  asserts  that  faith  is  not 

tom.  ii.  p.  sufficient  without   true   repentance.     Moral.  Sent.  Keg.  1. 

[vol.  ii.     Elsewhere  he  no  less  plainly  teaches  that  faith  is  not  per- 

p.  234.]     fected  except  by  Baptism,  by  which  our  covenant  is  sealed 

with  the  Lord.     So  also  in  his  work  on  the  Holy  Spirit, 

tom.  ii.  p.  chap.  12,  near  the  end,  he  says,  "  Faith  and  Baptism  are  the 

fvoi  iü     *^*^  modes  of  salvation  cognate  with,  and  inseparable  from 

p.  23.]       eacli  other ;  for  faith  is  perfected  by  Baptism,  and  Baptism 

is  founded  upon  faith."     And  presently,  in  the  end  of  the 

chapter ;    "  A  profession  indeed  precedes,  leading  the  way 

to  salvation ;  but  Baptism  follows,  sealing  our  assent."     And 

surely  the  necessity  of  Baptism  and  of  those  things  which 

dispose  a  man  for  Baptism,  for  obtaining  remission  of  sins, 

which  is  repeated  again  and  again  in  the  Holy  Scriptures, 

and  which  almost  takes  up  every  page  in  the  writings  of  the 

ancients,  afFords  sufficient  argument  tlioroughly  to  overturn 

this  Solifidianism  which  many  have  endeavoured  to  support 

as  well  from  proofs  from  Scripture  as  from  the  writings  of 

the  Fathers,  as  our  most  learncd  and  pious  Thorndike,  now 

(,  fxaKa-      with  God,  has  excellently  shewn  throughout  his  writings. 

P»T7jj         -p^^  ^^  appears  from  this  that  faith  is  not  sufficient  by  itself 

for  obtaining  justification,  but  that  outward  Baptism,  where 

it  can  be  had,  is  also  required :  but  above  all,  that  promise 


TertuUian.     St.  Ambrose.  271 

of  a  new  life  is  necessaiy ,  uliich  is  vront  to  be  made  in  s  E  c  T. 
Baptism.     Tliis  St.  Peter  plainly  teaches  us  :  "Baptism  doth       ^^" 


also  now  save  us,  (not  tlie  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  -^  ^^^^' 
flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards  God,)  by 
tlie  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ/^  ^vbere  "the  ansTver  of  a 
good  conscience"  is  ■oell  turued  by  learned  interpreters,  as 
the  promise  or  stipulation  of  a  good  conscience,  and  signifies 
the  same  as  "  our  consent/'  in  the  passage  above  quoted  ffvyKcnä- 
from    Basil.     For    in    Baptism,   the    Bishop    used    to    ask,   ^'^'^ 
"  Dost  thou  renounce  Satan  V   the  person  to  be  baptized 
answered,  "  I  do  renounce :"   ^hen  asked,  "  Dost  thou  take 
thy  part  in  Christ  V    he   auswered,  "  I  do  take  my  pait/' 
Tertulhan  on  Baptism  calls  this  ''  the  promise  of  salvation :"  [c.  vi.  p. 
the  same  author  says  in  bis  treatise  on  the  Eesiu'rection  of ""  ^^ 
the  Flesh,  "  The  soul  is  sanctified  not  by  the  washiug,  but  by  [cli.  xhüi. 
the  answer."  Cyprian  calls  it  the  "  interrogation  of  Baptism."  Ep.  70  and 
Kow  to  this  "  stipulation  of  a  good  conscience,"  the  salvation  ''<'•  [P;^125 
which  is  conferred  by  Baptism  is  clearly  attributed  by  St. 
Peter,  namely,  remission  of  sins,  and  a  right  to  etemal  life, 
not   to   the    outward  washing   in   itself.     For  without   this 
stipulation  (which  is  nothing  eise  than  an  undertaking  of  the 
whole  of  Christianity  or  evangehcal  law,  even  where  it  com- 
mands  the  taking  up  of  the  cross)  no  one,  though  endued 
^nth  ever  so  much  faith,  can  obtain  remission  of  sins  and  a 
right  to  etemal  life ;  but  these  eflects  of  Baptism  are  by  no 
means  absolutely  dependant  on  the  external  ceremony  of  the 
Sacrament,  that  being   a  thing  from  which   any  one  may 
be  debarred  by  peculiar  circumstances,  who  may  yet  have 
embraced   Christianity  sincerely  in   bis  heart.     But  let  us 
pass  from  Basü  to  the  other  Fathers. 

§  10.  Ambrose  may  come  next,  or  the  author  of  the  Com- 
mentaries  attributed  to  Ambrose.  He  makes  this  remark 
on  Rom.  iii.  24.  "  They  are  justified  gratuitously,  because  [vol.  ü.  p. 
having  done  nothing  nor  making  any  return,  they  are  justi- 
fied  by  faith  alone,  the  gift  of  God."  But  it  is  clear  that 
here  faith  is  not  opposed  to  any  works  proceeding  from  faith, 
neither  to  the  internal  virtues  of  liope,  contrition,  &c.,  but  to 
the  works  of  the  Mosaic  law,  or  even  to  the  works  of  natura 
perfoiTued  before  and  without  the  faith  and  grace  of  the 
Gospel.     Ile  speaks  vcry  plaiuly  of  works  of  the  former  kind 


272  St.  Chrysostom. 

s  E  C  T.  in  bis  comments  on  verses  27,  28,  29.     "  HaAdng  given  the 
reason,  he  says  he  is  speaking  to  those  under  the  law,  be- 


'-P'  ^J  cause  they  were  boasting  without  a  cause,  flatteriug  themselves 
about  the  law,  and  because  they  were  of  the  race  of  Abra- 
ham, not  perceiving  that  man  is  not  justified  in  God's  sight, 
exeept  by  faith,  'We  conclude  theu,  that  a  man  is  justified 
by  faith  without  the  works  of  the  law/  He  speaks  of  a 
Gentile  as  certainly  justified  by  belie^ing  without  doing  any 
works    of   the   law,   that   is,  without    circumcision,  or   new 

cap.  iv.  2.  moons,  or  observance  of  the  Sabbath,"  &c.  Preseutly  he  speaks 

Lp-  '  '4  •]  of  both  kinds  of  works,  of  the  INIosaic  and  of  the  natural 
law  together.  "  Since  they  who  keep  either  the  ]\Iosaic  or 
natiu'al  law,  are  justified  for  the  present,  so  that  the}'  are  not 
guilty  in  the  present  judgment :  wherefore  he  says,  '  For  if 
Abraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath  whereof  to  glory, 
but  not  before  God,'  for,  he  says,  '  Whosoever  doeth  the  law, 
shall  live  in  it :'  that  is,  he  shall  not  die  guilty,  and  yet  shall 
he  not  have  merit  for  tliis  before  God,  but  by  faith."     Henee 

In  1  Cor.  the  same  author  elsewhere  plainly  teaches  that  "  Faith  with- 

■  ■  '  ■  out  love  has  no  deserts,"  that  is,  cannot  obtain  justification 
and  salvation,  the  reason  being  added,  "  because  love  is  the 
head  of  religion,  and  he  who  has  not  the  head  has  not  life:" 
and  presently,  "nothing  profits  without  love,  because  love  is 
the  foundation  of  religion." 

§  11.  Let  Chrysostom  now  be  heard.  He  thus  speaks  in 
bis  Sermon  of  Faith  and  the  Law :  "  I  can  shew  a  man  that 
by  faith  without  works  was  gifted  with  life  and  the  kingdom. 
Not  one  hath  ever  lived  without  faith :  but  the  thief  by 
believing  only  was  justified.  And  say  not,  he  had  not  the 
time  for  ÜAing  well :  for  I  am  not  disputing  about  that,  but 
this  I  have  made  clear,  that  faith  alone,  even  by  itself,  saves. 
For  certainly,  if  he  had  sm-vived  bis  belicAing  and  had  neg- 
lected  to  do  good  works,  he  would  have  fallen  from  salvation." 
But  it  is  quite  clear  that  Chiysostom  is  speaking  here  of 
true  faith,  and  perfectcd  by  internal  love,  opposed  to  cxternal 
works,  or  pious  dceds,  which  a  believer  prevented  by  time  or 
opportunity  could  not  perform  :  this  I  say  is  clear  both  from 
the  words  themselves,  and  I  have  ah'eady  proved  it  by  several 

II.  Diss.    arguments  in  the  Harmony,  where,  not  to  go  over  old  ground, 

xMii. . .  p.  j  j.ßfgj.  ^jjy  read  er. 


St.  August ine.  273 

§  12.  Let  Augustine  close  the  band,  %yliose  single  opinion   SECT. 
(though  he  be  a  great  teacher)  Dr.  Tully  with  extraordiuary  


rashness  prefers  to  the  judgment  of  all  antiquity  wherever  p.  13, 14. 
that  may  differ  from  him.     He,  indeed,  in  his  eightv-three  ^^  quaest 

.  q.  10. 

questions  thus  writes :  "If  a  man,  as  soon  as  he  believed,  [vol.  vi.  p. 
should  straightway  depart  from  this  life,  the  justification  of  ^'■-' 
faith  remains  with  him,  without  good  works  preceding,  be- 
cause  he  did  not  attain  unto  it  by  merit  but  by  graee : 
er  subsequent,  because  none  Avere  allowed  to  be  done  in  this 
life.^'  But  it  is  piain  that  by  those  good  works  preceding, 
which  Augustine  here  escludes,  we  must  understand  those 
which  come  before  the  knowledge,  beHef,  and  grace  of  the 
Gospel,  which  indeed  are  none  :  and  that  by  subsequent 
good  works.  Augustine  meant  external  works,  or,  as  they 
say,  actual  righteousness,  or  a  holy  conversation,  which  it  is 
possible  one  who  bcKeves  and  loves  God  may  not  pei'form, 
being  prevented  by  dcath.  For  Augustine  is  expressiv  treat- 
ing  about  works  without  which  a  man  can  be  saved :  and  he 
has  taught  over  and  over  again,  that  no  one  can  obtain 
salvation  and  eternal  life  without  the  internal  virtues  of 
hope,  love,  contrition,  &c. ;  and  this  is  confessed  by  all  men  in 
their  senses.  Therefore  Augustine  is  plainly  talking  of  faith 
formed  by  love.  And  in  good  truth  Dr.  Tully  has  managed 
very  badly  for  his  own  cause,  by  appealing  especially  to 
the  judgment  of  Augustine,  than  whom  no  one  has  more 
frequently  or  more  openly  condemned  his  opinion.  I  have 
already  observed  in  the  Examen  that  the  holy  Father  dis-  Answpr 
tinguished  between  these  three,  "belie\-ing  God,"  "believing  ^jy^'j^ 
a  God,"  and  "  believing  on  God,"  and  to  this  last  faith  alone  is  p-  120. 

.  .  .  Tract   29. 

remission  of  sins  and  a  right  to  salvation  attributed.  (I  for-  ;„  joän. 
bear  using  the  word  justification,  because  it  is  well  kno^m 
that  that  word  is  generally  used  by  Augustine  in  a  different 
sense  to  what  we  use  it  in.)  Faith  on  God  he  thus  explains  : 
"  What  then  is  to  believe  on  God  ?  To  love  Him  by  beliedng, 
to  choose  Him  by  believing,  to  go  to  Him  by  believing,  and 
to  be  incorporated  among  His  membcrs."  And  every  one 
who  knows  any  thing  of  his  writings,  must  be  aware  that 
this  was  his  constant  teaching.  For  that  excellent  Father 
has  writtcn  an  entire  work  on  Faith  and  AVorks,  in  Avhich  he 
purposely  refutes   their   error  who   teach    that  faith    is    by 


274  St.  Augustine. 

s  E  c  T.  itself  sufficient  for  obtaining  the  saving  effects  of  Baptism, 

'. —  that  h,  remission  of  sins  and  a  right  to  eternal  life.     But  it 

is  -vrorth  while  to  hear  both  liow  Augustine  has  explained 
tlie  design  of  this  work  itself,  and  what  he  has  expressly 
Retract  taught  in  it  concerning  this  subject.  He  thus  wi-ites  con- 
38.  [\o\^i  cerning  the  design  of  the  work :  "  In  the  mean  time  some 
p.  55.]  writings  have  been  sent  to  me  by  certain  brethren,  laymen 
indeedj  but  persons  studious  in  Divine  things,  which  make 
such  a  distinction  between  good  ■works  and  Chiistian  faith, 
that  one  might  be  persuaded  that  one  could  not  attain 
eternal  life  without  the  latter^  but  that  one  might  without 
the  former.  In  answer  to  which  I  have  written  a  book 
entitled  '  On  Faith  and  "Works/  in  which  I  have  shewn  not 
only  hoTT  those  regenerated  by  the  gi'ace  of  Christ  ought  to 
hve,  but  what  kind  of  persons  they  ought  to  be  who  are 
admitted  to  the  laver  of  regeneration."  In  the  book  itself 
he  crushes  these  Solifidians  with  many  arguments,  shewing 
at  some  length  that  no  one  can  possibly  obtain  remission  of 
sins  and  salvation  in  Baptism  by  faith  alone_,  without  true 
repentance  for  his  sins :  and  you  have  the  summing  up  of 
tom.  iv.  p.  the  whole  work  in  chapter  20,  where  Augustiue  thus  beauti- 
p.  l85°-6.]  ^^J  describes  the  whole  method  of  obtaining  remission  and 
salvation  as  laid  down  in  the  Gospel :  "  This  is  the  order  of 
curatio  the  cui'c,  that  the  persons  to  be  baptized  believe  in  God  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  that  order  in  which 
the  Creed  is  given :  and  that  they  repent  of  their  dead 
works,  and  doubt  not  but  that  they  will  receive  in  Baptism 
entire  remission  of  theh'  passed  sins :  not  that  permission 
is  given  them  to  sin,  but  that  it  hurts  not  to  have  sinned; 
that  there  is  remission  of  what  has  been  done,  not  per- 
mission to  do.  Tlien  this  can  be  truly  said  even  spiritually : 
'  See,  thou  art  made  whole,  sin  no  more/  "  I  conclude  this 
section  with  Dr.  TuL/s  own  words :  "  Our  opponents,  I 
suppose,  have  had  enough  of  the  Fathers,  and  if  necessary 
they  might  have  had  more.  Let  us  now  proceed  to  the 
reformed  Churches." 


Ajypeal  to  the  Church  of  England.  27t 


SECTION  V. 

ON  CHAPTER  IIL— THE  JUDGMENT  OF  THE 
ENGLISH  CHURCH. 

§  1.  In   this   chapter   Dr.  Tullj   works   himself  iuto   an  sect. 
extraordinary  state  of  agitation :    he    exclaims,  vociferates,  — l" — 
tliunders  forth^  and  presently  triumphs ;  he  tramples  on  the 
couquered  Harmonist,  displays  his  trophies,  and   siugs  his 
hymn  of  victory,  though  as  yet  he  has  never  approached  our 
ranks.     But  I  beg  the  reader  to  read  over  again  attentively 
the   füll   explanation    of  the    Judgment    of  the  Church   of 
England  on  this  point  which  I  have  given  in  the  second 
Dissertation  of  the  Hannony,  and  in  the  Examen,  in  the  xvüi.  G. 
answer  to  the  twenty-third  Stricture,  and  he  will  easily  per-  ^*  ^^^^' 
ceive  from  thence  how  uselessly  he  has  wasted  these  many 
words.     It  is  not  necessary  to  go  over  the  whole  case  again, 
to  persons  more  acquainted  with  it :  but  since  the  reverend 
gentleman  seems  to  have  placed  the  chief  support  of  his  cause 
in  the  argument  of  this  chapter,  and  it  would  be  very  easy 
for  an  incautious  or  inattentive  reader  to  be  taken  in  and 
deceived  by  these  specious  words,  he  will  not  object  perhaps 
in  this  place  also  to  follow  the  Doctor  step  by  step. 

§  2.  After  a  little  skirmishing  in  the  beginning  of  the 
chapter,  he  thus  engages  in  the  contest :  "  Let  the  Church  of 
England  be  heard  concerning  this  controversy  about  justifi- 
cation  which  has  lately  begiin  to  make  a  noise ;  let  us  listen 
to  her  decree  in  the  eleventh  article.  'We  are  accounted 
righteous  before  God  only  for  the  naerit  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ  by  faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works  or 
deser\'ings  :  wherefore  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only  is  a 
most  wholesome  doctrine  &c/  What  can  be  clearer,  not  even 
the  sun  at  noon-day  ?"  But  why  does  the  reverend  gentle- 
man stop  near  the  end  of  the  article,  half  down  the  liill,  as  ut  in  di- 
the  saying  is  ?  why  not  quote  the  whole  of  it  as  it  Stands  ?  ^^"^^'^  ^^^ 
why  does  he  obtrude  upon  us  his  et  cateras?  Certainly  it 
would  not  have  taken  much  tirae  or  breath  to  quote  the  very 
few  words  which  close  tlie  article,  viz.  "as  morc  largely  is 
expressed  in  the  Homily  of  Justification."  But  Dr.  Tully  saAv 
that  these  last  words  threatened  ruin  to  his  cause,  and  there- 

t2 


276  Dr.  Tully  unfair  in  Ms  Quotation 

s  E  C  T.  fore  took  cai'e  to  suppress  them.  Indeed  our  Church  thus 
— — —  expressly  refers  us  to  the  Homily  of  the  Justification  of  Man, 
that  we  may  get  from  thence  tlie  true  aud  genuine  sense  and 
explanation  of  tlie  article  itself ;  nor  does  slie  explain  this 
doctrine  "  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  only,"  and  which  she 
recommends  to  her  sons  as  most  wholesome,  otherwise  than 
"  is  explained  more  largely  in  the  Homily  of  Justification."  I 
have  consulted  the  Homily :  I  have  quoted  that  more  füll 
explanation,  in  the  very  words  of  the  Homily :  and  lastly,  I 
have  testified  to  all  how  heartily  I  subsciibe  to  that  explana- 
tion. Why  is  the  reverend  gentleman  silent  at  all  this  ?  wliy 
does  he  not  answer  e^-en  a  word  ?  Do  these  artifices  become 
an  upright  man  and  a  lover  of  truth  ? 

§  3.  But  presently,  that  he  may  not  seem  to  have  treated 
US  altogether  unfairly,  Dr.  Tully  permits  us  to  go  to  the 
Homilies,  but  not  to  that  more  fully  expressed  explanation 
wliich  is  purposely  given  by  the  author  of  the  Homily  as  the 
genuine,  füll,  and  perfeet  meaning  of  the  article,  and  the 
whole  of  "svhich  I  myself  transcribed  in  the  Harmony  vrord 
for  word,  but  to  certain  scraps  of  the  Homily,  and  these  by  no 
meaus  faithfully  translated  by  him,  and,  fm'ther,  wretchedly 
distorted  by  bis  interpretations.  For  thus  he  begins  bis 
attack  on  the  author  of  the  Harmony,  out  of  the  Homily  : 
''  Let  US  consult  then  the  first  Homily,  on  the  Salvation  of 
Maukind,  ncar  the  end,  (on  which  I  know  not  why  he  is 
wbolly  silent.)  '  Faith  (says  the  Church)  doth  not  shut  out 
repentance,  hope,  &c.,  joiued  with  faith  in  every  man  that  is 
justified :  but  it  shutteth  them  out  from  the  oflSce  of  justify- 
ing.*  Nothing  cau  be  plaiuer;  here  then  is  a  deep  silence 
on  the  part  of  the  Harmonist,  who  if  he  adverts  to  the  pas- 
sage,  by  uo  means  should  have  drowned  it  in  silence."  To 
this  I  answer :  If  the  reverend  gentleman  was  before  Igno- 
rant why  the  Harmonist  was  wbolly  silent  on  the  first  part 
of  the  Homily,  let  him  now  know  that  the  reason  was  because 
in  this  part  the  exclusive  pai'ticlc  "only,"  and  the  meaning 
of  the  phrase  "  we  are  justified  by  faith  only,"  are  not  so 
fidly  and  expressly  treated  of,  and  that  was  the  only  point  on 
which  any  question  was  raised  in  that  chapter  of  the  Harmony 
■where  the  Harmonist  quoted  the  Homily.  For  the  writer 
shews  in  the  first  part  of  the  Horaüy,  that  three  things  in  all, 


of  the  Articles  and  Homilies.  277 

necessarily  concur  for  the  justification  of  man  ;   namely,  on  s  E  c  T. 

God's  part,  His  mere  and  wonderfiü  grace  and  mercy ;  on '- — 

Christas,  His  death  and  meritorious  sacrifice :  and  lastly,  on 
man's  part,  true  and  livelr  faitli.  "Wliich  last  point  the 
author  in  the  first  part  had  only  liglitly  touched  upon  towards 
the  end,  but  in  the  two  following  parts^  and  especially  the 
second^  he  explains  elaborately  and  at  length;  and  in  so 
accurate  and  careful  a  manner,  that  there  is  no  room  for 
doubting  concerning  the  genuine  meaning  of  this  proposition, 
*'  we  are  justified  by  faith  only/'  unless  it  be  to  sophists,  and 
those  who  delight  in  mere  Splitting  of  stra'n-s.  So  that  if 
Dr.  Tully  had  been  anxious,  as  he  professes  to  be,  about  being 
candid,  surely  he  should  have  rather  praised  tlian  called  into 
suspicion  my  integrity  and  simplicity,  who  did  not  seek  for 
nooks  in  vrhich  to  rest  my  arguments,  nor  quote  capriciously 
the  words  of  the  Homily,  but  appealed  to  those  passages 
where  the  author  of  the  Homily  plainly  professes  to  have 
given  his  mind  and  opinion  on  the  subject,  clearly,  fully,  and 
perfectly.  Would  that  the  reverend  gentleman  had  been 
equally  candid  !  and  indeed,  I  truly  am  ignorant  how  he  can 
have  Ijeen  so  entirely  silent  on  that  so  lengthened  and  elearly 
worded  explanation  of  the  article,  "  vre  are  justified  by  faith 
only/'  which  I  gave  from  the  second  part  of  the  Homily, 
unless  he  tho Light  it  better  to  fly  from  the  open  light,  which 
he  was  unable  to  bear. 

§  4.  However  this  may  be,  there  is  certainly  nothing  in 
this  first  part  of  the  Homily  which  I  fear  as  dangerous  to 
my  cause ;  nor  am  I  conscious  of  havdng  any  where  written 
any  thiug  difiering  a  hair's  breadth  from  the  opinion  of  the 
author,  as  there  given  us.     But  with  regard  to  the  passage 
brought  forward  from  it  by  the  Doctor,  I  cannot  sufficiently 
express  my  surprise  that  it  should  have  been  so  jiaraded  by 
him,  whereas  if  brought  forward  as  it  Stands,  and  faithfully 
translated,  it  is  elearly  against  him.     The  passage,  word  for 
Word,  runs  thus :    "That  faitli"   (namely,  a  true  and  lively  Hom.B.l. 
one,  of  which  he  had  been  speaking  in   the   words  imme-  [p.  19.  ed. 
diately  preceding)   "  doth  not    shut    out   repentance,    hope,    ^    '-' 
love,  dread,  and  the  fear  of  God,  to  be  joined  with  faith  in 
every  man  that  is  justified :   but  it  shutteth  them  out  from 
the  office  of  justifying.     So  that  although  they  be  all  preseut 


278  Homily  on  Salvation. 

SECT.  together  in  liim  that  is  justified,  yet  tliey  justify  not  alto- 

— gether.    Nor  the  faitb  also  doth  not  sliut  out  tlie  justice  of  our 

good  works  necessarily  to  be  done  afterwards  of  duty  towards 
God :  (for  we  are  most  bounden  to  serve  God^  in  doing  good 
deeds,  commanded  by  Hirn  in  His  Holy  Scripture,  all  tbe 
days  of  our  life :)  but  it  excludeth  tbem,  so  tbat  we  may  not 
do  them  to  this  inten t,  to  be  made  good  by  doing  of  tbcm. 
For  all  the  good  works  tbat  we  can  do  be  unperfect,  and 
tberefore  not  able  to  deserve  our  justification/'  In  wliicb 
passage  two  tbings  require  especial  notiee.  1.  Tbat  tbe 
autbor  of  tbe  Homily  openly  recognises  tbe  necessity  of 
otber  \'irtues  besides  faitb^  namely,  repentance^  bope,  love, 
fear  of  God,  by  wbicb  a  man  is  disposed  to  receive  tbe  grace 
of  justification.  For  be  does  not  only  say  tbat  tbose  virtues 
are  'joiued  with  faitb/  but  'are  to  be  joined/  in  every  jus- 
tified  mauj  (wbicb  Dr.  Tully  wretcbedly  tm*ns  "quin  in 
omni  bomine  justificato  cum  ea  consocientur/')  wbicb  way 
of  speakiug  evidently  sbews  tbis  necessity.  "Wliicb  is  bence 
still  more  evident,  for  tbe  autlior  distinguisbing  between 
tbat  babitual  rigbteousness  (as  it  is  called)  consisting  of  tbe 
internal  virtues  of  faitb,  bope,  repentance,  love,  &c.,  and  tbe 
actual  rigbteousness  of  good  works,  or  conspicuous  deeds— 
teaches,  concerning  tbe  former,  tbat  it  is  of  necessity  re- 
quired  in  every  man  wbo  is  to  be  justified:  concerning  tbe 
latter,  tbat  it  must  necessarily  be  perforraed  afterwards,  tbat 
is,  after  justification.  Or  tbe  former  rigbteousness  is  requisite, 
as  Ave  liave  said,  for  receiving  tbe  grace  of  justification,  tbe 
latter  to  prescrve  tbe  same  grace.  ^Ybence  (to  note  tbis  by 
Harm.  II.  the  way)  it  is  most  clear  that  I  bave  followed  the  opinion  of 
r''^'20'j'"tlie  Church  of  England  in  her  twelftb  article,  wbere  she 
teaches  tbat  good  works  follow  justification,  when  I  intcr- 
preted  the  article  only  of  the  actual  rigbteousness  of  works. 
For  in  this  passage  of  the  Homily  the  Church  clearly  distin- 
guisbes  between  that  rigbteousness  of  works  wbicb  must 
necessarily  be  done  after  justification,  from  the  internal 
virtues  of  faitb,  repentance,  bope,  &c.  wbicb  are  conjointly 
required  in  the  man  wbo  is  to  be  justified,  But  bow  can 
this  distinction  exist  if  all  our  rigbteousness,  as  well  babitual 
as  actual,  be  posterior  to  justification  ? 

§  5.  A  rcmarkable  passage  from  our  great  divinc  Richard 


Hooker  on  Jicstification,  279 

Hooker,  in  his  Sermon  on  Justification,  whom  Dr.  Tully  sorne  s  E  c  T. 
"wliere  in  vain  appeals  to,  will  serve  as  a  commentary  upon 


these  -words:  "svlien  having  laid  down  the  twofold  riglite- 2^p'632  ' 
Gusness  of  Christians,  he  says,  "  The  one  without  us,  which  ^^J-  ^i 
■vre  have  by  Imputation :  the  other  in  us,  which  consisteth  of 
faith,  hope,  charity,  and  other  Christian  virtues :"  and  then 
he  divides  the  '  righteousness,'  "which  he  calls  ^sanctifpng^ 
''into  habitual,  or  that  holiness  wherewith  our  souls  are  im- 
bued  the  same  instant  when  first  we  begin  to  be  temples  of 
the  Holy  Ghost;  and  into  actual,  or  that  holiness  -n-hich 
afterward  beautifieth  all  the  parts  and  actions  of  our  life :" 
and  then  he  thus  proceeds  to  explain  the  order  in  which  this 
threefold  righteousness,  imputed,  habitual,  and  actual,  is 
given  US :  "  If  it  be  here  demanded  whicli  of  these  we  do 
first  receive,  I  answer,  that  the  Spii'it,  the  virtues  of  the 
Spirit,  the  habitual  justice  which  is  engrafted,  and  the  exter- 
nal  justice  of  Jesus  Christ  which  is  imputed,  these  we  receive 
all  at  one  and  the  same  time :  whensoever  we  have  any  of 
these,  we  have  all :  they  go  together.  Yet  sith  no  man  is 
justified  except  he  believe,  and  no  man  believeth  except  he 
have  faith,  and  no  man  hath  faith  unless  he  have  received 
the  Spii'it  of  adoption,  forasmuch  as  these  do  necessarily 
infer  justification,  but  justification  doth  of  necessity  presup- 
pose  them,  we  must  needs  hold  that  imputed  righteousness, 
in  dignity  being  chiefest,  is  notwithstanding,  in  order,  last  of 
all  these :  but  actual  righteousness,  which  is  the  righteous- 
ness of  good  works,  succeedeth  all,  foUoweth  after  all,  both  in 
Order  and  in  time.  AVhich  thing  being  attentively  marked, 
shewetli  plainly  how  the  faith  of  tnie  behevers  cannot  be 
divorced  from  hope  and  love :  how  faith  is  a  part  of  sanctifi- 
cation,  and  yet  unto  justification  necessary;  how  faith  is 
perfected  by  good  works  and  yet  no  work  of  ours  good  Avith- 
out  faith:  finally,  how  our  Fathers  might  hold  Ave  are  justified 
by  faith  alone,  and  yet  hold  truly  that  without  good  works 
we  are  not  justified.^'  Although  I  do  not  entirely  approve 
of  the  whole  of  this  explauation,  (and  be  it  said  with  all  rever- 
encc  for  such  a  man,)  especially  whcre  he  makes  the  Spirit  of 
adoption,  and  indwcUing  of  the  same  Spirit,  prior,  at  least  in 
the  Order  of  nature,  to  our  justification,  (on  which  point  look 
back  to  Section  III.  4,)  yet  I  thought  it  was  to  be  brought 


280  illustrative  of  the  teaching  of  the  Homily. 

s  E  c  T.  forward  because,  on  the  whole,  it  extraordinarily  illustrates 

X: the  M'ords  quoted  from  the   Homily,   and  is  most   directly 

opposed  to  the  opiiiioii  of  our  Doctor  :  For,  Ist.  Hooker  here 
distinctly  shews  that  although  the  actual  righteousness  of 
works  is  altogether  posterior  to  justification,  yet  that 
righteousness  consisting  of  the  internal  virtues  of  faith,  hope, 
and  love,  and  which  he  calls  implanted,  habitual,  and 
sanctifying  righteousness,  precedes  in  the  order  of  uature 
the  Imputation  of  righteousness,  or  our  justification :  as  it  is 
clearly  stated  in  the  words  of  the  Homily,  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  good  works  or  deeds  must  necessarily  be  perforraed 
after  justification,  but  that  repentance,  hope,  love,  must  be 
joined  with  faith  in  every  man  who  is  to  be  justified.  I  shall 
think  Dr.  Tully  a  really  great  man  if  he  can  reconcile  his 
doctrine  with  this,  in  which  he  shews  that  a  man  is  justified 
before  true  and  saving  contrition,  that  a  wicked  man  is 
justified  while  he  is  still  wicked,  and  lastly,  (what  he  gives  in 
eh.  10.  liis  Catechism  to  youth  as  a  principle  of  theology,)  that  all  our 
sanctification  is,  in  the  order  of  nature,  posterior  to  justifica- 
tion. 2nd.  Our  great  divine  expressly  takes  uotice  of  these 
two  points,  that  man  is  justified  by  faith  only,  without  works, 
and  that  man  cannot  be  justified  without  works,  as  by  uo 
means  coutradictory  propositions,  if  that  distinction  between 
habitual  and  actual  righteousness  of  works  be  attended  to. 
It  is  indeed  rightly  stated,  that  man  is  justified  by  faith  only, 
(uaraely,  faith  'informed'  or  perfected  by  love,)  without  Avorks, 
that  is,  without  the  actual  righteousness  of  works,  inasmuch 
as  that  follows  our  first  justification.  On  the  other  band,  it 
is  rightly  said  that  man  is  not  justified  by  faith  only  without 
works,  namely,  those  internal  ones  of  hope,  love,  &c,,  inas- 
much as  they  precede  a  man's  justification,  at  least  in  the 
order  of  nature,  and  are  entirely  requisite  for  it.  I  appeal  to 
the  Doctor's  conscience  whether  I  have  not  frequently  given, 
in  explicit  terms,  this  vcry  explanation  of  the  article  in  the 
Harmony  ?     But  let  us  return  to  the  Homily. 

§  6.  2ndly.  The  other  point  to  which  I  would  especially 
call  the  reader's  attention,  in  the  above-quoted  words  of  the 
Homily,  is  this,  that  the  author,  by  the  expression  "office  of 
justifying,"  which  he  separates  from  works,  does  not  in  any 
sensc  raean  that  instrumentality  in  the  work  of  justification 


Justificaiioti  the  qjffice  of  God  onhj.  281 

which  is  so  much  talked  of  by  some,,  or  any  tliiug  eise  which  s  E  C  T. 
can  be  attributed  strictly  to  foith,  (as  Dr.  Tally  seems  to  liave  ^- 
thouglit,)  but  the  efficient  cause,  whether  priucipal  or  merito- 
rious,  of  our  justificatioiij  wliicli  is  to  be  separated  as  well 
from  faith  itself  as  from  the  rest  of  our  virtues.  Indeed  I 
know  not  with  what  eyes  the  reverend  gentleman  could  have 
read  the  Homily,  and  altogether  have  passed  over  this  whicli 
is  so  obvious,  and  which  forces  itself  upou  the  reader  in  every 
Word.  For  from  the  words  preceding  the  passage  quoted,  at 
the  distance  of  only  three  lines,  it  is  quite  evident  what  is 
meant  by  "works  being  excluded  from  the  work  of  justify- 
ing.^'  They  are,  "  The  grace  of  God  doth  not  shut  out  the 
justice  of  God  in  our  justification,  but  only  shutteth  out  the 
justice  of  maUj  that  is  to  say,  the  justice  of  our  works,  as  to 
be  merits  of  our  justification."  In  the  passage  already 
quoted,  the  words  are  piain ;  "  Faith  excludeth  them  so  that 
we  may  not  do  them  to  this  intent,  to  be  made  just  by  the 
doiug  of  them.  For  all  the  good  works  Avhich  we  can  do, 
be  imperfect,  and  therefore  are  not  able  to  deserve  om*  justi- 
fication." What  will  he  make  of  the  author's  expressly 
separating  (in  the  second  part  of  the  Homily)  the  work  of  Hom.  J5  i. 
justifying  from  every  virtue  or  work  of  ours,  attributing  it  to  ^^V'  ^^• 
God  aloue  through  Christ  ?  Let  us  hear  his  own  words  : 
"  Justification,"  says  he,  "  is  not  the  ofiice  of  man,  but  of 
God :  for  man  cannot  make  himself  righteous  by  his  own 
works,  neither  in  part,  nor  in  the  Avhole :  for  that  were  the 
greatest  arrogancy  and  presumption  of  man  that  Anticlu^ist 
could  set  up  against  God,  to  affirm  that  a  man  might  by  his 
own  works  take  away  and  purge  his  own  sins,  and  so  justify 
himself:  but  justification  is  the  office  of  God  only,"  &c. 
Read  also  the  remainder  of  this  passage.  But  how,  you  will 
say,  does  faith  exclude  both  itself  and  the  rest  of  our  virtues 
from  the  work  of  justifying,  that  is,  from  the  meritorious 
efiicient  cause  of  our  justification?  I  answer,  Because  faith 
implies  a  respect  unto  the  gratuitous  promise  of  God,  which 
has  becn  obtaincd  and  confirmcd  by  the  Blood  and  propitia- 
tory  Sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  by  which  remission  of 
sins  and  eternal  salvation  is  gratuitously  given  to  the  greatest 
sinners,  but  who  are  truly  penitent  for  their  sins,  for  the  sake 
of  Christ  aloue.     But  of  this  more  shall  be  said  preseutly. 


283  Faith  ahne  directly  leads  to  Christ ; 

S  E  c  T.       §  7.  Dr.  Tully  proceeds  to  another  passage  of  the  Homily, 

Yi which  I  also  liad  quotecl  in  tlie  Harmony.     Here  again  the 

Justif.        reverend  gentleman  abounds  in  extraordinaiy  and  vehement 

22^23^      rhetoricisnis  :  he  inveighs  with  great  pomp  against  the  reck- 

lessness  of  the  young  Havmonist,  and  further  charges  him 

with  having  gainsaid  directly  the  Church  of  England  :    he 

professes  to  be  thoroughly  astounded,  he  eomplains  of  a  pro- 

fession  being  attached  to  the  Church,  which  can  no  where 

be  found  unless  perhaps  in  some  Utopian  archives  :  lastly, 

he  says,  that  that  must  now  be  said  by  the  Church  and  her 

true  children,  which  Csesar,  about  to  be  slain,  once  said  in  the 

Senate,  "  Surely  this  is  Adolence/'    But  I  again  beg  the  reader 

fxopixo\u-    not  to  be  terrified  with  these  hobgobhn  expressions,  but  to 

''*^""         attend  and  keep  his  mind  to  the  subject  itself,  and  he  will  then 

see  how  here,  as  on  other  occasions,  a  great  noise  is  made  about 

nothing  at  all.     But  that  the  wliole  matter  may  be  brought 

to   light,  some   repetitions   must   be   here   made   from  the 

II.  Diss.    Harmon3\     I  there  brought  forward  a  passage  from  the  third 

^^'","  ^'      part  of  the  Homily  of  Salvation,  which  runs  word  for  word  as 

p.  200.         •'■  ./  ' 

[Honi.  i.  follows  :  "  Truth  it  is,  that  our  own  works  do  not  justify  us,  to 
^'  ^■-'  speak  properly  of  our  justification :  that  is  to  say,  our  works 
do  not  merit  or  deserve  remission  of  our  sins,  and  make  us 
of  unjust  just  before  God :  but  God  of  His  mere  own  mercy 
through  the  ouly  merits  and  deser^^ngs  of  His  Son  Jesus 
Christ  doth  justify  us.  Nevertheless,  because  faith  doth 
directly  send  us  to  Christ,  for  remission  of  our  sins,  and 
that,  by  faith  given  us  of  God,  we  embrace  the  promisc  of 
God^s  mercy,  and  of  the  remission  of  our  sins,  (which  tliing 
none  other  of  our  \irtues  or  works  properly  doth,)  therefore 
Scripturc  usctli  to  say  that  faith  without  works  doth  justify." 
To  which  passage  of  the  Homily  I  subjoin  my  own  words : 
"  From  which  appears  the  whole  of  what  must  be  separately 
attributcd  to  faith  in  the  matter  of  justification,  in  the 
opinion  of  our  Church,  which  is,  that  although  other  virtuos 
are  no  less  necessary  to  justification  than  faith  itself,  and 
faith  in  rcality  has  no  more  eff'ect  in  it  than  any  other  ^drtue, 
but  yet  of  all  the  virtuos  faith  is  that  one  by  which  we 
embrace  the  Gospel  promise,  by  which  promise  we  are  justi- 
fied,  therefore  by  a  convcnient  phrase,  our  justification  may 
be   and   is  usually  attributed  to  faith  only,  and  this  by  a 


1 


therefore  may  be  said  to  justify.  283 

metonymy  in  which  tlie  act  is  put  for  tlie  object,  with  which  S  E  C  T. 

it  has  to  do."    Hear  now  what  Dr.  Tally  says  to  tliis  :  "  "Ulio  : — 

is  not  perfectly  amazed  at  this,  wlieu  lie  hears  the  Church 
giving  a  contrary  definition^  in  the  pi'ecisest  terms^  again  and 
again?  Oui*  Chiu'ch  lays  down^  in  words  which  cannot  be 
clearer,  'that  faith  is  said  to  justify,  because  it  contributes 
that  towards  justification  which  no  other  \ii'tue,  no  other 
human  work  can  do/  "  But  who  does  not  here  find  a  want 
of  good  faith  and  straightforwardness  in  the  Doctor?  For 
where  has  the  author  of  the  Homily  these  words,  which 
Dr.  Tully  has  taken  care  to  have  printed  in  italics,  as  if 
really  the  author's  own :  "  Since  it  (faith)  contributes  that 
to  justification  which  no  other  virtue,  no  other  human  work 
can  do?^^  So  far  from  its  being  true  that  he  says  this  over 
and  over  again  in  the  precisest  terms,  he  does  not  even  once 
say  any  thing  from  which  such  a  conclusion  as  this  can  be 
fairly  drawn.  He  constantly  teaches  that  neither  faith,  nor 
any  other  virtue  of  ours,  contributes  any  thing  towards  our 
justification,  otherwise  than  as  the  disposition  or  condition 
requisite  on  our  parts,  in  which  way  he  equally  acknowledges 
that  not  only  faith,  but  also  repeutance  conduces  towards 
our  justification.  In  the  passage  which  we  have  now  before 
US,  the  author  of  the  Homily  teaches  us  three  things : 
Ist.  That  no  Avork  or  virtue  of  ours  justifies  us  if  we  speak 
strictly  of  justification,  that  is,  they  do  not  merit  remissiou 
of  our  sins,  and  make  us  just  of  unjust  in  the  siglit  of  God. 
2ndly.  That  faith  alone,  of  all  the  other  virtues,  leads  us 
directly  to  Christ,  and  embraces  the  gratuitous  promise  of 
Divine  mercy.  3rdly.  Therefore  it  is  said  in  Scripture,  that 
faith  without  works  justifies,  in  order  that  all  merit  of  ours 
may  be  excluded  from  the  matter  of  justification,  as  the  author 
of  the  Homily  frequently  explains  it.  Now,  had  the  author  of 
the  Harmony  ever  denied  any  one  of  these  three  points  ?  on 
the  contrary,  he  most  explicitly  recognises  them  all  iu  his 
Harmony.  "The  word  'faith'  excludes  merit  in  this  sense  ri. Diss.v. 
also,  because  so  far  as  it  refers  to  a  free  promise,  it  expects  its  '''  ^"  '^' 
reward  only  from  the  free  gift  of  God,  Wlio  promises.  And 
this,  if  I  mistake  not,  is  the  chief  reason  wliy  the  Holy  Sjjirit 
is  w'ont  to  express  all  the  obcdicucc  taught  in  tlic  Gospel  by 
the  word  '  faith,'  because  by  this  word  is  shcwn  that  the  obc- 


284  Homily  and  Harmonist  alike  disclaim 

s  E  c  T.  dience  we  pay  to  God  does  not  obtaia  rigliteousness  or  salva- 
tion  by  its  OAvn  force  or  meritj  but  by  force  of  tlie  covenant  or 


free  promise  Avhicli  is  received  by  faith."   But  in  wliat  manner 
II.  Diss.    faitli  leads  us  directly  to  Christ,  I  have  thus  shewn.     "  But 
^'   •  P-  '  •  because  the  promise  of  eternal  life,  given  in  the  Gospel,  is 
founded  in  the  meritorious  satisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
confirmed  by  His  most  precious  blood,  therefore  the  obedience 
of  faith  continually  refers  to  Christ  as  the  only  Propitiator: 
and  His  most  perfect  obedience  in  life  and  deatb  is  the  only 
circumstance  which  makes  our  imperfect  and  spiritless  obe- 
dience acceptable  to  God  unto  salvation^   and  to  carry  off 
the  reward   of  eternal  life."     The  reader  would  do  well,  if 
he  has  leisiu'e,  to  read  the  \yhole  of  this  paragraph.     But 
that  neither  here  nor  elsewhere  the  author  of  the  Homily 
ever  thought  of  that  instrumentality,   strictly  so  called,  of 
faith  in  the  matter  of  justification  for  wliich  many  so  sharply 
II.  Diss.    contend,  I  have  sufficiently  proved  in  the  Harmony :  where- 
^^"^'        fore,  all  these  things  being  weighed^  I  shall  leave  it  to  the 
aß^exf^la     judgracut  of  the  conscientious  reader  "whether  recklessness 
is  to  be  here  ascribed  to  the  young  or  to  the  old  writer. 

§  8.  There  yet  reraains  the  third  and  last  passage  from 

the  Homily  which  Dr.  Tully  has  brought  agaiust  our  opinion, 

and  from  Avhich  he  holds  thunders  and  lightnings  over  our 

ipyodiuK-  heads.     "  Against   the  followers  of  works,   our   mildest    of 

^"^  mothers,  kindled  with  zeal  towards  God,  thus,  contrary  to 

pt.  ii.  [p.    her  custom,  fulminates  in  the  Homily  of  Salvation ;    '  This 

■-'  doctrine,'  (i.  e.  of  justification  by  faith  alone  without  works,) 

'  all  old  and  ancient  writers  of  Christ's  Church  do  approve : 

this  doctrine  advanceth  and  setteth  forward  the  true  glory 

of  Christ,  and  beateth  down  the  vain  glory  of  man  :    this, 

whosoever  denieth,'   (attend,   O  reader,)  'is  not  to  be  ac- 

counted  for  a  Christian,  but  for  an  advcrsary  to  Chi'ist  and 

His   Gospel,  and  for  a  setter  fortli  of  men's  vain   glory. ^ 

What  stupendous  words  are  these,  of  what  an  awful  sound  \" 

I  answer :    What  Dr.  Tully  means  here  by  ipyoSicoKTa';,  I 

do  not  know,  as  neither  do  I  understand  some  othcr  of  his 

elegant   expressions,     But   whatevcr   it   is,    these   thunder- 

bolts  do  not  strike  us,  inasmuch  as  they  are  aimed  by  our 

mildest  of  mothers,  roused  by  just  fervour  and  zeal  towards 

God,  only  at  the  supporters  of  human  merits.     Let  us  quote 


all  human  merit  ofworks.  285 

the  whole  passage  as  it  Stands,  -wliicli  Dr.  Tully,  tliat  it  might  s  E^C  T. 
serv-e   bis    own  cause,    has    given   us    cut   up    and   broken. 


"  Tliis  savinff,  tliat  we  be  iustified  by  faith  onlv,  freelr,  and  [Hom.  L 
without  works,  is  spoken  for  to  take  a-n-ay  clearly  all  merit  of 
our  Tvorks,  as  being  unable  to  deserve  our  justification  at 
God's  bands,  and  tbereby  most  plainly  to  express  tbe  vreak- 
ness  of  man  and  tbe  goodness  of  God ;  tbe  great  infirmity 
of  ourselves  and  tbe  migbt  and  power  of  God ;  tbe  imperfect- 
ness  of  our  own  works,  and  tbe  most  abundant  grace  of  our 
Saviour  Cbrist;  and  tberefore  wbolly  to  ascribe  tbe  merit 
and  deserving  of  our  justification  unto  Cbrist  only,  and  His 
most  jirecions  blood-sbedding.  Tbis  faith  tbe  Holy  Scripture 
teacbetb  :  tbis  is  tbe  streng  rock  and  foundation  of  Cbristian 
religion :  tbis  doctrine  all  old  and  ancient  autbors  of  Christas 
Cburcb  do  approve :''  and  so  it  goes  on,  as  quoted  by  tbe 
Doctor.  Surely,  notbing  is  more  evident  from  tbese  words 
tban  tbat  tbose  alone  are  aflfected  by  tbis  anatbema,  and  are 
rejected  from  tbe  society  of  Christians,  wbo  defend  tbe  meri- 
toriousness  of  good  works.  But  wbat  is  tbis  to  tbe  autbor  of 
tbe  Harmony  ?  So  far  is  be  from  defending  tbe  merit  of 
good  works,  tbat  be  is  clearly  of  tbe  same  opinion  against 
tbem  as  tbe  autbor  of  tbe  Homily.  Hear  bis  own  words 
from  tbe  Harmony  :  "  Surely  tbose  do  not  deserve  tbe  name  IL  Diss. 
of  Christians  wbo  teach  such  a  kind  of  merit.  And  I  will  jg^"'  "  P' 
confidently  pronounce  tbat  tbose  wbo  have  tborougbly  im- 
bibed  such  a  shocking  principle,  have  scarcely,  ay  never, 
known  or  feit  tbe  grace  of  Cbrist.  Modesty  of  mind  is  the 
very  soul  of  Christianity,  and  be  tbat  is  without  it,  is  as  tbe 
dead  body  of  a  Cbristian,  not  a  true  and  living  Cbristian : 
but  to  such  modesty,  wbat  can  be  more  opposite  tban  tbe 
above  proud  presumption  of  merit  "f"  From  tbis  tbe  reader 
will  see  witb  wbat  fairness  Dr.  Tully  bas  abused  the  words 
of  tbe  Homily,  tbat  be  might  crush  bis  Opponent  witb  the 
anatbema  of  the  Eugbsh  Cburcb. 

§  9.  I  have  at  lengtb  gone  througb  all  tbose  passages 
which  Dr.  Tully,  after  ba^ing  carefully  scarched  every  nook 
and  coruer,  as  it  appears,  could  bring  foi'^'ard  from  tbe 
Homily  of  tbe  Salvation  of  Man,  iu  support  of  his  own 
against  our  explanation  of  tbe  article.  Now  let  passage  be 
comparcd  witb  passage,  namely,  the  many  clear  and  distinct 


286  Dean  Field's  explanation 

s  E  C  T.  passages  from  the  Homily  wliich  I  have   fally  and  fairly 

'. —  quoted  in  the  Harmony  and  Examen,  with  those  few  whicli 

Dr.  Tully  has  given,  broken,  cut  np,  and  evidently  distorted 
by  bis  own  interpretations,  and  tben  I  will  -vnlbngly  leave  it 
to  the  decision  of  any  fair-minded  person  to  say  to  which 
interpretation  of  tlie  article,  mine  or  bis,  the  author  of  the 
Homily  would  give  bis  assent,  to  wbom  tbe  article  itself 
expressly  refers  iis  as  its  legitimate  Interpreter.  Indeed  I 
cannot  biit  be  surprised  at  tbe  consummate  confidence  of  tbe 
Doctor,  wbo  after  so  ligbt  a  contest,  or  ratlier  a  skirmish,  so 
unsuccessfully  brought  to  a  close,  tlms  votes  bimself  a 
triumpb.  "  It  is  more  tban  sufficiently  e^ident^  as  I  tbink, 
on  tbe  part  of  tbe  Cburcb  of  England,  tbat  sbe  not  only 
does  not  support  with  her  assent,  but  utterly  abominates  all 
ipyoliKai-  kiud  of  righteousness  of  works :"  i.  e.  even  tbat  wliicb  we 
defend. 

§  10.    Before,  bowever,  we   proceed  to  tbe   rest   of  tbis 

cbapter,  it  may  be  as  well  to  strengtben  our  explanation  of 

the  article,  Avbicb  to  tbe  fair-minded  reader  we  must  have 

already  sufficiently  proved  by  the  passages  cited  from  the 

Homily,  with  the  autbority  and  support  of  one  of  our  most 

learned  and  most  approved  tbeologians,  wbo  was  famous  for 

Just.  Paul,  bis  writings  long  before  those  twenty  years  wbicb  Dr.  Tully 

^'     '        has  determined  as  the  sera  of  the  new  ecclesiastical  doctrine 

introduced  amongst  us :  and  tbis  too,  lest  any  one,  finding 

tbat  he  is  unable  to  refute  it  by  otlier  means,  sbould  brand 

it  with  the  invidious  name  of  novelty.     Tbis  is  tbe  late  most 

worthy  Dean  of  Gloucester,  Richard  Eield,  a  divine  of  keen 

p.323,324.  judgment  and  great  reading,  wbo  in  tbe  Appendix  to  tbe 

I628"l^°"  second  cbapter  of  bis  third  book  on  tbe  Cburcb,  after  he  had 

answered  tbe  Papists  wbo  objectcd  against  oui*  doctrine  tbat 

"man  is  justified  by  faitb  only  witbout  works,"  by  saying 

tbat   the   same   doctrine   had  been   banded   down    by   tbe 

ancicnts   in   the  very  same  formula   of  words,   goes  on  to 

enquirc  in  wbat  sense  botli  ancieut  and  modern  di^ines  have 

understood  tliese  words.     "  By  tliese  phrases  of  speecb,"  be 

says,  "they  sometimes  exclude  (1.)  all  tbat  may  be  witbout 

supernatural  knowledge,  all  tbat  may  be  witbout  a  true  pro- 

fession :  (2.)  sometimes  the  uecessity  of  good  works  in  act, 

or  external  good  works :  (3.)  The  power  of  nature  witbout 


of  the  phrase,  '  by  faith  only^  287 

illumination  and  grace.     (4.)  The  power  of  the  law.     (5.)   SECT. 

The  sufficiency  of  any  thing  found  in  us  to  make  us  stand  in '■ — 

judgment,  to  abide  the  trial,  and  not  to  fear  condemnation. 
And  in  this  sense  faith  only  is  said  to  justify,  that  is,  the 
only  mercy  of  God,  and  merit  of  Christ  apprehended  by 
faith :  and  then  the  meaning  of  their  speech  is^  that  only  the 
persuasion  and  assured  tnist  that  they  have,  to  be  accepted 
of  God,  for  Christ's  sake,  is  that  that  maketh  them  stand  in 
judgment  without  fear  of  condemnation.  And  in  this  sense 
all  the  divines  formerly  alleged,  for  proof  of  the  insufficiency 
of  all  our  inherent  righteousness  and  the  trust  which  we 
should  hare  in  the  only  mercy  of  God^  and  merit  of  Christ^ 
do  teach  as  we  do,  that  faith  only  justifieth.  For  neither 
theynorwe  exclude  from  the  work  of  justification,  the  action 
of  God  as  the  supreme  and  highest  cause  of  oiu'  justification  : 
for  it  is  He  that  remitteth,  and  receiveth  us  to  grace  :  nor 
the  merit  of  Christ,  as  that  for  which  God  inclineth  to  shew 
mercy  to  us,  and  to  respect  us :  nor  the  remission  of  sins, 
gracious  acceptation  and  grant  of  the  gift  of  righteousness, 
as  that  by  which  we  are  formally  justified  :  nor  those  works 
of  preventing  grace,  whereby  out  of  the  general  apprehension 
of  faith,  God  worketh  in  us  dishke  of  our  former  condition, 
desire  to  be  reconciled  to  God,  to  have  remission  of  that 
which  is  past,  and  grace  hereafter  to  decline  the  like  eA"ils, 
and  to  do  the  contrary  good  things.  For  by  these  we  are 
prepared,  disposed,  and  fitted  for  justification,  without  these 
none  are  justified.  And  in  this  sense,  and  to  imply  the 
necessity  of  these  to  be  found  in  us,  sometimes  the  Fathers 
and  others  say  we  are  not  justified  by  faith  only.  And  we 
all  agree  that  it  is  not  our  conversion  to  God,  nor  the  change 
we  find  in  ourselves,  that  can  any  way  make  us  stand  in 
judgment  without  fear,  and  look  for  any  good  from  God 
otherwise  than  in  that  we  find  ourselves  so  disposed  and 
fitted  as  is  necessary  for  justification,  whence  we  assure  our- 
selves God  will  in  mercy  accept  us  for  Christ's  sake." 

§  11.  This  explanation  of  the  article  certainly  coincides  in 
all  its  parts  with  our  intei-prctation  of  it,  as  given  in  the 
Harmony :  but  it  does  not  in  any  way  Square  with  that  of 
the  Doctor.  For  Ist.  Good  works,  which  the  most  leamed 
gentleman  wished  to  have  excluded  from  the  proposition, '  we 


288  the  same  as  maintained  in  the  Harmony. 

S  E  C  T.  are  justified  by  faitli  only  without  works/  are  by  himself 

: —  reduced  in  all  to  five  beads.     1.  Works  done  witbout  an 

external  revelation  of  tbe  Gospel.  2.  External  -works,  or  tbe 
actual  ligliteousuess  of  works.  3.  "Works  of  natui'e,  done 
witbout  tbe  internal  grace  of  tbe  Gospel.  4.  Works  of  tbe 
law,  i.  e.  the  Mosaic.  5.  And  lastly,  meritorious  works, 
w^bicb  are  done  witb  tbe  opinion  and  in  tbe  confidence  of 
tbeir  being  meritorious.  Now^  I  ask  tbe  Doctor  to  bring 
forward  a  passage  wbere  tbe  antbor  of  tbe  Harmony  attri- 
butes  tbe  first  justification  to  any  of  tbese  works  :  on  tbe 
contrary,  be  expressly  and  very  frequently  excludes  all  tbese 
works  from  tbat  first  justification.  2ndly.  He  expressly  sbews 
tbat  tbe  meaning  and  view  of  all  our  diräies  wbo  bave  tised 
tbis  mode  of  speaking,  was  on  tbe  wbole  tbis :  tbat  tbere  is 
no  virtue  or  good  work  of  ours  on  wbicb  we  ean  rely  and 
stand  fearless  at  tbe  judgment  of  God,  witbout  tbe  mercy  of 
God  and  tbe  merits  of  Cbrist  our  Saviour :  and  tbat  next,  all 
tbose  divines  wbo  acknowledge  tbat  all  our  inberent  rigbte- 
ousness  is  insufficient,  and  tbat  we  ougbt  to  place  our  trust 
only  in  tbe  mercy  of  God  and  merits  of  our  Sa^dour,  teacb 
tbe  same  tbing,  namely,  tbat  faitb  only  justifies.  And  tbis 
is  tbe  xevY  explanation  of  tbe  article  for  wbicb  we  are  con- 
tending,  but  wbicb  Dr.  Tully  rejects  as  not  being  füll  or 
sufficient.  Srdly.  He  makes  tbe  formal  cause  of  our  justifica- 
tion to  consist  in  tbe  admission  of  our  sins,  and  our  accept- 
ance  to  salvation,  and  not  (as  does  Dr.  Tully)  in  tbe  imputa^ 
tion  of  Cbrist's  rigbteousness.  Forsootb,  tbat  clear-sigbted 
divine  perceived  tbat  tbe  rigbteousness  of  Cbrist,  wbicb,  in 
agreement  witb  all  Catbolics  be  bad  laid  down  as  tbe  primary 
meritorious  cause  of  our  justification,  could  not  be  made  at 
tbe  same  time  its  formal  cause,  witbout  a  gross  absurdity, 
and  cven  a  manifest  contradiction.  For  tbe  meritorious 
cause  is  of  tbe  nature  of  an  efficient,  wbicb  is  only  an  exter- 
nal cause  :  but  tbe  formal  cause  is  internal,  and  constitutes 
tbe  essence  of  tbe  tbing  effected  :  so  for  tbe  same  tbing  to  be 
at  once  tbe  meritorious  and  formal  cause  of  tbe  same  tbing 
tbat  is  cfFcctcd  implies  a  contradiction :  for  tbus  it  would  be 
and  not  be  of  tbe  essence  of  tbe  tbing  at  tbe  same  timc. 
Hence  it  is  tbat  tbe  learned  man  in  tbe  same  cbapter  clearly 
teacbes  from  Durandus  tbat  tbe  rigbteousness  of  Cbrist  does 


Works  ofpreventing  grace  not  excluded.  289 

not  become  ours  formally,  (which  formal  Imputation  Dr.  Tiilly  s  E  c  T 


defends  asrainst  Bellarraine,  not  without  great  injury  to  tlie 

^  1  •  p  .Tustif. 

reformed  cause,)  but  ouly  effectively,  that  is,  as  tar  as  re-  pawi.p.oi. 
gards  its  saving  fruits  and  effects.     His  words  are  :  "  For,  as 
Durandus  correctly  observes,  although  the  merits  and  good 
works  of  one  man  cannot  be  so  imputed  to  anotber  as  to 
be  accounted  for  his  merits,  and  as  that  he  should  be  sup- 
posed  to  have  merited  and  to  have  performed  those  good 
works,  yet  they  can  be  so  communicated  that  their  fruits 
and  advantage  may  redound  to  him,  and  he  for  another's 
sake  be  accounted  as  if  he  had  himself  performed  them." 
4thly.  The  learned  divine  clearly  teaches  that  in  this  proposi- 
tion,  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone  without  works,  the  works 
of  preventing  grace  are  by  no  means  excluded  from  the  first 
justification,  namely,  true  contrition  for  sin,  ardent  desire 
for  the  Divine  favour,  and  for  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whereby,  for  the  future,  we  may  be  able  to  abstain  from  sin 
and  do  good  works :  which  desire  necessarily  presupposes  the 
purpose  of  a  new  life ;  Avhich  works  occur  in  Scripture  uuder 
the  name  of  conversion  or  renewing ;  but  that  all  these  are 
of  necessity  required  first  in  a  man,  in  order  that  he  may  be 
disposed,  prepared,  and  made  fit  by  them  to  receive  the  grace 
of  justification.     Now  let  Dr.  Tully's  divinity  be  compared 
Avith  this ;  who  lays  down  that  true  contrition  is  not  necessary 
for  justification,  that  a  wicked  man  is  justified  in  the  con- 
current  sense,  i.  e.  while  he  is  still  wicked,  that  no  virtue  or 
human  work  is  requisite  for  justification,  more  than  for  a 
man  already  born  to  be  born ;  let  this  comparison,  I  say,  be 
made,  and  it  will  soon  be  seen  how  diff'erent  are  their  lines 
of  demarcation.      Sthly.  Lastly,  that   great   divine  declares 
that  in  this    sense    it    was    sometiraes   rightly  said  by  the 
Fathers  and  otliers,  that  man  is  not  justified  by  faith  only, 
because  those  works  of  preventing  grace  are  of  necessity 
required  with  faith  which  are  comprehended  undcr  the  name 
of  conversion,  even  for  obtaining  the  final  justification.     I 
now  appeal  to  the  Doctor's  conscience,  whethcr  I  cver  denied, 
in  any  other  sense  than  this,  that  man  was  justified  by  faith 
only. 

§  12.  What  follows  after  this  in  the  chapter,  is  writtcn  by 
Dr.  Tully  in  a  declamatory  style  about  the  royal  dcclaration 


290  Dr.  Tully's  charges  loorthless  tillproved. 

S  E  c  T,  prefixed  to  our  Articles,  about  tlie  canon  of  tlie  Church,  the 
subscriptions  and  oatlis  so  often  repeated  by  us.     As  soon, 


however,  as  Dr.  TuUy  shall  have  proved  that  we  have  ever 
taught  any  tbing  contrary  to  tbe  clear  definitions  of  our 
Cbm'cb,  then,  and  not  tili  then,  will  we  coufess  that  tbese 
cbarges  have  any  thiug  to  do  with  us.  But  since  he  has  not 
yet  proved  this^  and  I  know  well  enough  is  not  likely  ever 
to  do  so,  there  is  no  reason  that  we  should  be  in  the  least 
annoyed  by  all  this,  although  it  be  most  tragically  stated  on 
his  part.  But  I  heartily  wish  that  the  reverend  gentleman 
when  he  comes  to  be  tried  concerning  his  dogmas,  may  as 
easily  acquit  himself.  I  do  not,  however,  think  that  this 
Justif.  should  be  passed  over,  which  Dr.  Tully  brings  against  some 
25^2^'  ®^  ^^^^  innovators,  namely,  that  they  teach,  in  Opposition  to 
the  eighteenth  article  of  our  Church,  that  the  way  to  heaven 
is  open  even  to  the  heathens,  Avho  have  no  faith  in  Christ, 
and  who  have  not  renouneed  their  idols ;  and  he  adds,  that 
he  is  speaking  of  what  is  very  well  known.  Now  certainly, 
though  he  does  say  it  is  so  known  to  the  very  lowest,  I  have 
never  before  heard  of  it.  Neither,  I  take  leave  to  say,  is  the 
Doctor's  authority  of  such  weight  -svith  me,  nor  ought  it  to 
be,  that  I  should  easily  believe  his  bare  asseveration  that  any 
one  of  those  who  wish  to  be  considered  most  submissive  sons 
of  the  Church  of  England  (and  of  these  he  is  expressly 
speaking)  ever  sent  forth  so  barefaced  an  assertion  either  in 
his  sermons  or  writings.  If  any  one,  however,  has  been  so 
insane,  let  him  answer  for  himself :  I  do  not  wish  to  be  his 
supporter.  With  regard  to  myself,  it  may  be  seen  in  the 
Thes.  3.  Appendix  to  the  seventeenth  Stricture  on  the  Examen,  how 
Wi.'f'  very  far  I  am  from  any  such  opinion.  And  since  Dr.  Tully 
has  thought  fit  both  here  and  elsewhere,  to  go  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  present  controversy,  he  cannot  object  if  we  do 
the  same,  by  bringing  to  the  test,  besides  those  points  of  his 
teaching  which  are  heterodox  on  the  article  of  Justification, 
some  others  also  of  histenets  which  are  not  quite  satisfactory: 
and  this  we  will  do  in  Section  VII.  Meanwhile  we  have  in 
the  next  place  to  examine  what  forcign  reformed  Chiu'ches 
tcach  concerning  the  prcscnt  questiou. 


Appeal  toforeign  reformed  Churches.  291 


SECTION  VI. 

ON  CHAPTER  IV.— ON  THE  JUDGMENT  OF  FOREIGN 
CHURCHES  WHICH  ARE  CALLED  REFORMED. 

§  1.  Dr.  Tully  liere  savs  that  tlie  Harmonist's  boldness  SECT. 
is  extraordiuary,  (lie  had  called  it  a  '  manifest  calumny^  in  —         - 
the  heading  of  the  chapter,)  in  tliat  in  tlie  sixth  chapter  Qf '^"W'^"" 
his  first  Dissertation  he  flatly,  and  as  it  were  from  an  oracle, 
tlius  pronounces  concerning  the  jndgment  of  foreign  Cliurches. 
"  It  is  clear  that  they  all,  or  at  least  the  principal^  are  in  a  eh.  vi.  ]. 
manner  professedly  on  our  side  of  the  qnestion^^ — and  pre-  ^' 
sently  he  exclaims,  "  Alas  !  for  his  good  faith" — then^  as  is 
his  custom,  he  ahuses  the  Harmonist.     But  concerning  the 
Harmonist's  good  faith  in  this  point^  we  will  leave  it  to  the 
free  judgment  of  all  Avho  have  the  love  of  truth  at  heart. 
We  make  two  assertions.     1.  That  the  expression  "we  are 
justified  by  faith  only/'  in  the  %'iew  of  the  old  Protestants  is 
taken  altogether  figuratively,  so  that  grace^  which  answers  to 
it,  is  to  be  understood  in  the  word  faith,  and  so  then  to  be 
justified  by  faith  only  is  the  same  as  to  be  justified  by  grace 
only,  and  not  by  the  merit  of  works.     2.  In  the  same  ex- 
pression  the  necessity  of  true  repentance  for  obtaining  re- 
mission  of  sins  or  justification,  is  by  no  means  excluded. 
We  constantly  affirm,  that  on  these  two  points,  (which  are 
sufficient  for  our  purpose,)  at  least  the  principal  and  most 
celebrated  of  the  reformed  Confessions  entirely  agree  with 
US.     Such  is  our  assertion. 

§  2.  Now,  omitting  Dr.  Tully's  rhetorical  effusions,  which  Justif. 
"  are  only  got  up  for  deceiving  the  unskilful,  the  sciolists,  and  179, "  ^' 
the  incautious/'  (I  use  his  own  words,)  let  us  see  what  solid 
arguments  are  brought  forward  by  him.     He  thus  proceeds  :  ibid.  p.  29. 
"  But  this,  he  says,  he  has  shewn  more  fully  in  eh.  xviii.  But 
what  does  he  shew  there  ?     Ist.  That  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land is  on  his  side.     But  I  think  I  have  done  away  with 
this  calumny  in  the  former  chapter,  (an  impudent  one  in- 
deed  it  is,  and  would  that  the  indignity  of  the  thing  would 
allow  of  a  milder  expression.")     But  whether  the  Harmonist 
or  Dr.  Tully  himself  is  guilty  of  the  impudent  calumny,  (if 
indeed    the  indignity  of  the  thing  allows  not  of  a  milder 

u  2 


293  Augsburg  Confession, 

s  E  c  T.  Word,)  let  any  one  judge  who  will  not  think  it  amiss  to  com- 

'- —  pare  botli  what  I  liave  said  in  this  eigliteentli  cliajiter  of  the 

second  Dissertation,  and  also  in  tlie  Examen  in  the  answer 
to  tlie  last  Stricture,  as  well  as  in  tlie  preceding  Section  of 
this  Apology,  and  what  shall  be  said  in  the  following  one, 
with  those  things  which  Dr.  Tally  has  brought  forward  on 
the  opposite  side  in  the  tliird  chapter  of  his  work. 

§  3.  Dr.  Tully  now  hastens  on  to  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion. Where,  in  the  flrst  place,  he  finds  fault  with  me  be- 
cause  I  called  that  the  greatest  of  all  the  reformed  Confes- 
sions,  not  excepting  even  our  own  Anglican  one.  But  what 
is  the  harmless  word  that  ill-feeling  and  envy  will  not  find 
fault  with  ?  I  only  said  the  same  tliing  that  many  learned 
men  both  of  our  own  and  foreign  countries  have  said  before 
me,  and  who  also  highly  honoured  our  Church.  Now  the 
Augsburg  Confession  is  deservedly  called  the  greatest  for 
more  than  one  reason.  In  the  first  place,  (not  to  say  any 
thing  of  its  most  excellent  and  learned  principal  author  Ph. 
Melancthon,)  it  was  the  first  of  all  the  Confessions.  Next,  at 
the  time  when  it  was  pubhshed,  it  was  approved  of  by  the 
consent  of  almost  all,  if  not  of  all  the  reformed  Churches, 
Universities,  and  Doctors.  Lastly,  it  is  still  received  and 
held  in  certain  kingdoms,  and  great  principalities  and  free 
states.  The  Doctor,  moreover,  is  off"euded,  because  I  said 
that  the  heads  of  our  Church  had  foUowed  and  imitated  this 
Confession.  But  what  can  be  clearer  than  this?  The  first 
article  of  our  Confession  is  taken  almost  word  for  word  from 
the  first  of  the  Augsburg.  Our  second  is  clearly  copied  from 
the  third  of  Augsburg.  Also  the  sixteenth  in  ours  (which 
most  of  all  grieves  the  Doctor,  and  those  who  think  with 
him)  openly  imitates,  towards  the  cnd,  the  auathemas  of  the 
elevcnth  in  the  Augsburg,  as  our  twenty-fifth  does  the  thir- 
teenth  in  the  Augsburg.  Again,  in  our  Homilies  how  often 
must  the  attentive  reader  who  is  acquainted  with  Me- 
lancthou's  writiugs,  hear  him  speaking !  Add  to  which, 
(what  I  shall  soon  have  occasion  to  put  before  the  reader,) 
that  Hooper,  of  blessed  mcmory,  (who  Avas  present  at  the 
Synod  from  Avhence  our  Articlcs  and  the  first  book  of  Homilies 
come,  and  whom  some  of  the  Homilies  especially  claim  as 
their  author,  so  marked  are  they  by  his  style,)  was  in  the 


appealed  to  in  vain  by  Dr.  Tully,  293 

habit  of  copying  long  passages  from  Melancthon's  writings^  s  E  c  T. 
almost  Word  for  word.     But  I  miss  either  the  Doctor's  good ^ — 


judgmeut  or  his  fairness,  wlien  lie  says  that  "  lie  does  not  Justif. 
at  all  wish  to  detract  any  thing  from  the  very  orthodox  Con-  ^^  '^' 
fession  of  Augsburg/'  Now,  if  he  really  does  not,  some 
things  must  be  taken  out  of  his  Catechism,  inasmuch  as  they 
evidently  are  at  variauce  with  the  Augsburg,  as  also  with  the 
Anglican  Confession,  which  shall  be  clearly  proved  in  the 
following  Section. 

§  4.  Meanwhile  let  us  proceed  with  the  Doctor.  "  But 
what/'  says  he,  "  does  this  greatest  of  all  his  Confessions  lay 
down  ?  Why,  if  we  beheve  him,  that  repentance  is  altogether 
necessary  for  justification."  Truly  this  is  a  grievous  crime 
in  me,  who  have  dared  to  assign  to  the  Augsburg  divines 
so  pernicious  a  doctrine,  namely,  one  which  is  asserted  by 
the  Prophets,  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  by  all  the  Doctors 
of  the  ancient  Catholic  Church,  and  in  short  by  all  souud 
Protestants.  And  yet  Dr.  Tully  has  arrived  at  such  a  pitch 
of  confidence,  that  he  is  not  afraid  to  stake  the  whole  fortuue 
of  his  cause  on  this  point.  His  words  are,  "  Let  there  be 
brought  forward,  even  one  syllable  in  the  Confession,  which 
looks  that  way,"  (namely,  to  prove  that  true  coutrition  is 
necessary  for  justification,)  "  and  we  will  own  ourselves 
conquered/'  Who  would  wish  for  a  more  easy  Opponent  ? 
we  accept  his  terms,  promising  ourselves  certain  victory. 
Let  the  whole  of  the  passage  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  be 
quoted,  (which  in  the  Harmony  I  have  for  brevity's  sake  only 
quoted  in  part,)  and  it  will  soou  be  seen  how  plainly  Dr.  Tully 
betrays  his  own  cause.  Its  words  are  :  "  In  the  first  place  Aug.  Con- 
then,  they  (the  Churches)  thus  teach  concerning  faith  and  ^'^^  j5^*'^^' 
justification.  Christ  fitly  comprehends  the  whole  sum  of  the 
Gospel,  when  in  the  last  chapter  of  St.  Luke  He  Orders  that 
repentance  and  remis.sion  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  His 
name.  For  the  Gospel  convicts  of  sin,  and  requires  repent- 
ance, and  at  the  sarae  time  ofFers  remission  of  sins  freely  for 
Christ's  sake,  and  not  for  our  worthiness.  And  as  the 
preaching  of  repentance  is  universal,  so  also  is  the  promise 
of  gi*ace ;  it  bids  all  men  beheve,  and  reccivc  the  benefits  of 
Christ.  As  Christ  says,  '  Come  unto  Me  all  ye  that  ai'e  heavy 
laden,'    &c.,    and    St.  Paul   says,    '  He   is   rieh   to  all,'   &c. 


294  teaches  throughout  the  necessity 

s  E  c  T.  Althouo;h  then  some  contritiou  is  necessarv,  still  it  is  to  be 

VI  •  .    .  ...  ' 
'- —  believed  tliat  remission  of  sins  is  given  us,  and  we  are  made 

rigliteous  of  unrighteous,  reconciled  or  accepted  and  sons  of 
God,  freely  for  Christas  sake,  not  for  the  wortliiness  of  our 
contrition,  or  for  any  other  of  our  former  or  subseqnent 
works.^^  It  is  in  vain  for  Dr.  Tully  to  contend  that  a  repent- 
ance  not  saA'ing,  sucb  as  was  Judas',  is  meant  here.  For,  is 
repentance  like  tbat  of  Judas  necessary  for  man's  salvation  ? 
Besides,  the  Augsburg  Confession  gathers  the  necessity  of 
repentance,  of  which  it  is  speaking,  from  the  words  of  our 
Lord  in  the  last  chapter  of  St.  Luke,  Avhere  He  bids  repent- 
ance and  remission  of  sins  to  be  preached  in  His  name.  But, 
is  our  Saviour  speaking  of  a  repentance  to  be  repented  of, 
such  as  "was  Judas'?  or  does  He  join  remission  of  sins  to 
such  a  repentance  as  this  ?  I  am  ashamed,  for  the  Doctor's 
sake,  of  such  a  comment.  Let  us  hear  too  the  fomth  article 
of  the  Augsbui'g  Confession,  which  runs  thus  :  "  But  that  we 
may  obtain  the  benefits  of  Christ,  namely,  remission  of  sins, 
justification,  and  lifo  eternal,  Christ  has  given  us  the  Gospel, 
in  which  these  benefits  are  held  out  to  us,  as  it  is  written  in 
the  last  of  St.  Luke,  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins 
be  preached  in  His  name  amongst  all  nations.  For  since  all 
men  born  in  the  natural  way  have  sin,  and  are  unable  truly 
to  satisfy  the  law  of  God,  the  Gospel  convicts  of  sin,  and 
shews  to  US  Christ  as  a  Mediator,  and  thus  teaches  us  con- 
ceming  remission  of  sins.  When  the  Gospel  con\-icts  us  of 
our  sins,  our  terrified  hearts  should  be  convinced  that  remis- 
sion of  sins  and  justification  by  faitli  are  freely  given  us  for 
Christ's  sake,  by  Mhich  faith  we  ouglit  to  beheve  and  confess 
that  these  are  given  us  for  Christ's  sake,  Who  was  made  a 
victim  for  us,  and  ai)peased  the  Father.  Although  therefore 
the  Gospel  requires  repentance,  yet,  that  remission  of  sins 
ma}^  be  certain,  it  teaches  that  it  is  frccly  given,  that  is,  does 
not  depeud  on  any  condition  of  our  worthiness,  nor  is  given 
US  for  any  of  our  former  works,  or  the  worthiness  of  such  as 
follow."  Where  it  is  taught  clearly  enough,  that  that  re- 
pentance requii'cd  in  the  Gospel,  which  without  doubt  is 
none  other  but  a  real  and  saving  repentance,  is  required  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  that  is,  the  justification  of  man. 

§  5.  In  the  mean  time,  it  does  not  escapc  me  that  the 


of  repentance  for  Justification.  295 

Augsburg  divines  have  somewhat  nicely  divided  repentance  S  E  C  T. 

into  two  partSj  contrition  and  faith^  and  have  explained  tliat — 

former  act  of  repentance  in  a  different  vr&y  to  tliat  in  which 
it  has  hitherto  been  explained.     Cassander  long  ago  obsen^ed  ad  Art.  12. 
this,  in  bis  Consultation^  in  the  follomng  words :    "  As  to  y^j^  ad 
what  is  subjoined  in  tlie  book  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  P^'^-»  P- ^2. 
namely,  that  this  repentance  consists  of  contrition  and  faith, 
and  that  fruits  worthy  of  repentance  ought  to  foUow  it ;  this 
is  new  in  this  division  of  repentance,  that  faith  is  joined  to 
the  parts  of  repentance,  confession  being  passed  over,  and  put 
after  contrition ;  and  this  in  such  a  way  as  that  contrition  is 
explained  contrary  to  the  received  opinion  of  the  Church. 
For  the  terrors  and  fears  of  the  wounded  conscience  on  the 
acknowledgment   of  sin,  are  not  meant  Trhen  Tve  speak  of 
contrition,  but  contrition  proceeds  from  these  terrors ;  and 
by  contrition  is  understood  soitow  for  our  sin  on  account  of 
God's  being  offended,  with  the  pui'pose  of  abstaining  from  it, 
which  sorrow  is  informed  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  proceeds  informa- 
not  only  from  fear  of  Divine  judgraent,  but  from  faith  in  the 
Divine  word,  and  a  confidence  of  obtaining  pardon.     But  if 
by  contrition  any  kind  of  sorrow  for  sin  caused  by  the  teiTor 
of  the  law  be  meant,  such  sorrow,  since  it  precedes  true  and 
saving  repentance,  is  not  wont  to  be  reckoned  among  the 
parts  of  repentance,  and  has  been  used  to  be  called  rather  by 
the  name  of  '  attrition'  than  '  contrition/     Although  con- 
trition of  this  kind  is   called  'repentance,^  or  'change  ofresipi- 
mind,'  to  which,  for  it  to  be  efficacious  or  saving,  faith  or  ^'^^^^^ 
confidence  of  mercy  must  be  added,  as  the  examples  of  Cain 
and  Judas  manifestly  prove." 

§  6.  Nevertheless,  it  is  certain  that  the  Augsburg  Divines 
taught  that  that  contrition  which  is  made  true  and  saving 
by  faith,  by  which,  namely,  we  gain  a  true  hatred  of  sin,  love 
of  righteousness,  and  a  firm  purpose  of  a  new  life,  is  necessary 
for  recei\ing  remission  of  sins  or  justification.  Who  could 
more  thoroughly  understand  the  meaning  and  sense  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  than  Melancthon,  who  composed  it? 
Lct  US  hear  then  his  own  piain  explanatiou,  as  he  has  giveu 
it  in  the  following  words*".     "  There  was  no  faith  in  the  con- 

k  Loc.  Theol.  de  Fide  in  Corp.  Christian.  Doctrin.  p.  33ö,  330.  [vol.  i.  p.  217. 
Op.  cd.  1562.] 


296  Melancthon  on  true  contritioji, 

S  E  C  T.  trition  of  Judas,  and  so,  oppressed  by  despair,  he  rushed  into 

'■ —  eterual  destruction :  on  the  contrarv,  iu  Peter's  contrition, 

tliere  was  faitli :  and  so  lie  rose  agaiu  fi'om  bis  gi-eat  grief. 
And  wheu  we  are  lifted  up  by  faith,  tbe  remembrance  of  the 
goodness  of  God  comes  upon  us,  and  we  ai'e  not  only  dis- 
tressed  by  tbe  fear  of  pnnisbment,  but  with  a  purer  sorrow 
for  baving  offended  God,  to  ^Tbom  we  owe  gratitude  and 
obedience,  But  there  is  no  need  to  refine  upon  tbese  affec- 
tions,  God  wills  tbat  we  sbould  fear  His  wrath,  and  tbat  it 
sbould  be  seen  in  punishment.  But  let  faitb  be  added,  and 
let  US  not  fly  from  God,  but  retum  to  Hirn  and  seek  to  be 
received,  and  be  sure  tbat  it  is  God's  everlasting  and  immu- 
table  will,  to  receive  tbose  cast  down  witb  fear  wbo  believe 
tbat  pardon  is  granted  tbem  for  the  sake  of  their  Mediator. 
This  He  bids  us  beheve  and  hold.  This  faitb  makes  a  great 
difference  between  servile  and  filial  fear.  The  forraer  is 
w  ithout  faith,  and  actually  flies  from  God :  but  fihal  fear  is 
a  ten-or  mixed  with  faitli,  which  elevates  and  consoles  the 
niind  in  the  midst  of  its  fears,  approaches  God,  and  seeks  and 
obtaius  remission.  This  descriptiou  is  piain,  and  can  be 
uiulerstood  in  oiu'  piactice.  Contrition  without  faitb,  is  a 
horril)le  dread  and  auguish  of  the  soid  flying  from  God,  as  in 
Saul  and  Judas :  but  contrition  with  faith  is  the  di-ead  and 
anguish  of  the  soul  not  flying  from  God,  but  acknowledgiug 
Ilis  just  wrath,  truly  sorrowing  for  baving  neglected  and 
despised  Hirn,  but  yet  Coming  to  Hirn  and  iraploring  pardon. 
Such  sorrow  as  this  becomes  a  good  work  and  a  sacrifice,  as 
says  the  Psalmist :  '  The  sacrifice  of  God  is  a  troubled  spirit : 
a  broken  and  coutrite  heart,  O  God,  shalt  Tliou  not  despise.' 
And  yet  we  must  censure  and  reject  tbat  opinion  which  has 
pretended  tbat  men  merited  remission  of  their  sins  by  their 
contrition,  or  tbat  remission  is  given  tbem  for  the  worthiness 
of  tlieir  contrition,  &c."  AVhat  can  be  plainer  than  this? 
He  clearly  rccoguises  tbe  neccssity  of  true  contrition  for 
receiving  justificatiou,  while  he  altogether  rejects  the  merit 
of  contrition  in  the  work  of  justificatiou. 

§  7.  "\Ve  may  now  very  easily  refute  those  minute  bits  of 

Justif.        sopldstry  by  which  Dr.  Tully  prescntly  persuades  us  tbat  the 

3i?'32.^      divincs  of  Augsburg,  notwitlistauding  this  manifest  avowal 

of  their  opinion  given  by  thcmselvcs,  did  not  mean  tbat  true 


the  fruit  offaith,  hut  prior  to  justification.  297 

contrition  preceded  justification.     The  sum  of  ^vliat  he  sars  s  E  C  T. 
is^  that  the  fruits  and  eflfects  of  faith  do  not  prccede  justifica-  • 

tion^  for  then  they  would  precede  faith  itself,  and  so  the 
effect  would  be  prior  to  the  cause  ;  and  repentance  and  con- 
trition^ according  to  the  Augsburg  divines,  are  the  etfects  and 
fruits  of  faith.  I  answer  :  They  do  indeed  teach  that  true 
repentance  and  contrition  are  the  effects  and  fruits  of  that 
faith  which  justifies^  but  they  no  less  clearly  teach  that  faith 
is  not  justifying  until  it  produce  these  fruits  and  eflects. 
This  is  clear  from  those  words  of  Melancthon,  "  FiHal  fear  is 
dread  mixed  with  faith,  which  elevates  and  consoles  the  soul 
in  the  midst  of  its  fears,  approaches  God,  seeks  and  obtains 
remission.^^  Consider  then.  Fear  becomes  fiHal  by  the 
addition  of  faith  :  by  that  faith  the  sinuer  approaches  God, 
implores  reraissionj  and  in  this  way  at  length  receives  it,  that 
is,  is  justified.  Therefore,  although,  according  to  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  the  approaching  God  and  the  sincere  and 
eamest  prayer  for  pardon,  (which  constitute  true  repentance,) 
are  the  effects  of  that  faith  which  justifies,  yet  they  precede 
remission  of  sins  or  justification,  and  without  them  that 
justification  or  remission  is  not  obtained.  The  same  thing  is 
meant  by  these  words  :  "  Contrition  with  faith  is  the  dread 
and  anguish  of  the  soul  not  flying  from  God,  but  acknow- 
ledging  Ilis  just  wratli,  truly  sorrowing  for  haviug  neglectcd 
and  despised  Hirn,  but  yet  Coming  to  Hirn  and  imploring 
pardon.  Such  sorrow  becomes  a  good  work  and  a  sacrifice," 
&c.  TVTiat  can  be  plainer?  Contrition  before  faith  is  an 
anguish  which  flies  from  God  :  but  joined  to  faith  it  becomes 
the  anguish  of  the  soiü,  acknowledging  God's  just  wrath, 
truly  sorrowing,  and  Coming  to  Him  to  implore  pardon; 
thus  it  is  made  that  sacrifice  of  which  the  Psalmist  speaks, 
'  The  sacrifice  of  God  is  a  troubled  spirit,  a  broken  and  con- 
trite  heart,  O  God,  shalt  Thou  not  despise.'  In  a  word  then, 
according  to  the  Augsburg  divines,  true  contrition  or  repent- 
ance is  not  the  effect  of  justifying  faith,  as  such,  but  belongs 
to  its  very  essence :  that  is,  faith  is  not  justifying  which  has 
not  yet  produced  true  contrition  or  repentance. 

§  8.  Dr.  Tully  gocs  on  to  the  Confession  of  Wurtemberg,  Justif. 
as  quoted  by  us.     "  Of  the  same  stamp  also,"  he  says,  "  are    ^   '^'" 
the  arguments  urgcd  by  him  from  the  AVurtcmbcrg  Confes- 


298  Confession  of  Wurtemberg. 

sion,  but  really  so  unsuccessfully,  tliat  a  more  deadly  blow 
could  not  have  been  given  to  our  opponent's  cause^  thus 
smitten  as  it  were  under  the  fifth  rib.  Let  us  hear  the 
words  from  tlie  chapter  on  Justification.  '  We  believe  that 
for  doing  and  exercising  righteousness  these  virtues  are 
necGssary,  faith,  bope,  and  charity,  &c.'  See,  'for  doing  and 
exercising  righteousness/  that  is,  for  other  good  works.  For 
it  does  not  say  for  justification  :  for  the  most  ignorant  would 
not  allow  that  a  'man  makes  and  exercises  his  justification/" 
But  we  constantly  miss  fairness  in  the  Doctor,  when  he 
quotes  the  words  of  others.  The  words  of  the  Confession  are 
these  :  "  We  believe  and  confess  that  for  doing  and  exercising 
righteousness  acceptable  to  God,  these  virtues  are  necessary, 
faith,  hope,  and  charity,  &c."  The  piain  meaning  of  which 
is,  that  no  one  without  these  virtues  can  be  acceptable  to 
God  unto  salvation :  and  what  is  this,  I  ask,  but  that  no  one 
can  be  justified  without  these  virtues  ?  Again,  the  Wurtem- 
bergians  make  hope  and  charity  of  the  same  necessity  as 
faith,  and  no  one  doubts  but  that  they  acknowledged  faith  as 
requisite  for  the  justification  of  man.  Lastly,  it  is  piain  that 
the  necessity  of  these  virtues,  faith,  hope,  and  charity,  are 
acknowledged  by  the  Wurtemberg  divines  in  the  same 
relation  in  which  the  merit  of  these  same  is  denied  by  them. 
But  the  merit  which  they  take  away  from  these  virtues,  has 
reference  to  the  work  of  justification,  and  so  the  conclusion 
is  obvious.  The  Avords  of  the  Confession  are  clear :  "We 
believe  and  confess  that  for  doing  and  exercising  righteous- 
ness acceptable  to  God,  these  virtues  are  necessary,  faith, 
hope,  charity,  &c.  But  we  consider  that  their  opinion  is 
most  widely  opposed  to  the  true  apostolic  and  Catholic  doc- 
trine,  who  teacli  that  man  is  made  acceptable  to  God,  and  is 
accounted  just  before  God,  on  account  of  these  vii-tues,  and 
that  at  the  judgment  of  God  he  must  trust  to  the  merits  of 
these  "\drtues."  We  have  not  time  at  present  to  recite  the 
absurd  argument  which  Dr.  Tully  here  puts  in  his  opponent's 
mouth.  If  any  one  can  be  taken  with  such  witticisras  as 
these,  Ict  him  be  so. 

§  9.  Dr.  Tully  closes  this  chapter  by  quoting  many  proofs 
from  the  Confessions  of  other  foreign  Churches,  To  all  of 
which  I  answcr,  that  altliough  I  never  took  upon  mysclf  to 


Confession  of  Strasburg.  299 

bring  forward  whatever  might  be  said  in  every  Confession  on  s  E  C  T. 


this  subject,  (for  I  only  affirmed  that  at  least  tbe  earliest 
and  greatest  of  tbe  reformed  Confessions  were  on  our  side,) 
yet  whoever,  not  contented  witb  tbe  mutilated  fragments 
quoted  by  Dr.  Tully,  sball  look  iuto  tbe  Confessions  tbem- 
selves,  and  examine  tbe  entire  opinion  of  eaeb  on  this  subject, 
be  ^vill  confess  witb  me  tbat  tbey,  one  and  all,  reject  tbe 
merit  of  any  \-irtue  from  tbe  work  of  justification,  but  plainly 
acknowledge  tbe  necessity  of  true  repentance  for  obtaining 
justification :  wbicb  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose.  But  if 
there  is  any  reformed  Confession  opposed  to  tbis  opinion, 
tbat  one  must  be  Tidtbout  doubt  rejected  as  contrarj^  on  tbis 
point  to  tbe  Scriptures  and  Catbolic  consent, 

§  10.  But  tbis  is  by  no  means  to  be  passed  over,  tbat  tbe  Justif. 
Strasburg  Confession  is  quoted  by  Dr.  TuUy  as  favouring  bis  35^3'/' 
opinion,  tban  wbicb  notbing  can  be  more  opposite.  He 
bimself  observes  tbat  tbe  states  01  Constance,  Memmingin, 
and  Lindau,  subscribed  to  tbis  Confession,  and  also  tbat  it 
was  presented,  togetber  witb  tbe  Augsburg,  to  His  Imperial 
Majesty  (Cbarles  tbe  Fiftb),  and  tberefore  must  bave  been 
drawn  up  witb  some  caution  and  moderation,  if  any  diflSculty 
pressed  upon  tbem  in  tbat  controversy.  Let  us  now  bear 
tbe  words  of  tbis  celebrated  Confession.  "  But  we  are  un-  cap.  4. 
willing  tbat  tbis"  (namely,  wbat  bad  just  been  said  about 
justification  by  faitb  only)  "  sbould  be  so  understood  as  if  we 
placed  salvation  and  rigbteousness  in  tbe  idle  cogitations  of 
tbe  soul,  or  in  faitb  void  of  love,  wbicb  tbey  call  uninformed, 
since  we  are  sure  tbat  no  one  can  be  rigbteous  or  in  a  state 
of  salvation  unless  be  love  God  supremely,  and  most  earnestly 
imitate  Him.  'For  wbom  He  did  foreknow,  He  also  did 
predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  tbe  image  of  His  Son  :'  as  in 
tbe  gloiy  of  a  blessed  life  so  in  tbe  exercise  of  innocence  and 
tbe  bigbest  rigbteousness :  '  for  we  are  His  workmansbip, 
created  unto  good  works.^  Now  no  one  can  love  God  above 
all  things,  and  imitate  Him  witb  a  wortby  zeal,  unless  be 
plainly  knows  Him,  and  as  Him  from  wbom  be  may  promise 
to  bimself  tbe  greatest  blcssings.  Tberefore  we  cannot  in 
any  otber  way  be  justified,  tbat  is,  come  as  well  into  a  state 
of  salvation  as  into  a  state  of  rigbteousness,  (for  rigbteous- 
ness is  itsclf  our  salvation,)  tban,  baving  faitb  givcu  us  by 


300  Necessity  of  true  love  of  God, 

s  E  c  T.  which  we  believe  the  Gospel,  and  persuaded  that  God  has 

'- —  adopted  us  to  be  His  sons,  and  will  for  ever  sliew  us  His 

paternal  loving  kindness^  depend  wholly  on  His  will.  St. 
Augiistine  in  his  Avork  on  Faith  and  Works  calls  this  faith 
'  evangelical/  that  is,  faith  made  efficacious  by  love."  The 
Strasburg  Confession  plainly  teaches  us  three  things.  1.  That 
the  idea  of  righteousness  or  justification,  and  of  salvation,  is 
the  sanie  :  to  be  justified,  is  to  come  in  a  state  of  salvation 
as  well  as  of  righteousness,  nay,  that  righteousness  is  our 
salvation  itself :  and  so  that  whatever  is  required  for  salva- 
tion is  equally  required  for  righteousness.  2.  That  that 
love  by  which  a  man  loves  God  supremely  and  above  all 
things  is  altogether  necessary  for  the  righteousness  and 
salvation  of  man.  3.  That  it  follows  from  the  necessity  of 
love,  that  faith  also  is  necessary  for  the  righteousness  and 
salvation  of  man :  inasmuch  as  without  that  faith,  by  which 
we  are  persuaded  of  the  Di\dne  mercy  revealed  to  us  in  the 
Gospel,  it  is  not  possible  for  any  one  to  love  God  above  all 
things.  What  does  Dr.  Tidly  say  to  all  this  ?  He  contends 
that  the  meaning  of  the  Strasburg  divines  is,  "  that  this  love 
of  God  is  the  fruit  of  faith,  and  follows,  not  precedes,  justifi- 
cation."  But  what  can  be  more  barefaced  than  such  an  In- 
terpretation ?  The  Strasburg  divines  plainly  mean  that  the 
love  of  God  is  an  indispensable  condition  for  any  one  to 
obtain  righteousness  and  salvation.  For  they  do  not  say 
that  no  one  is  righteous  unless  he  love  God  above  all  things, 
which  words  might  admit  of  the  Doctor's  Interpretation,  but 
that  "  no  one  can  possibly  become  righteous  unless  he  love 
God  above  all  things,"  which  is  entii'ely  contrary  to  his 
meaning.  "With  equal  reason  might  Dr.  TuUy  affirm  that 
the  Strasburg  divines  meant  that  love  of  God  is  consequent 
to,  and  not  antecedent  to  salvation,  when  they  clearly  teacli 
that  the  idea  of  righteousness  and  salvation  of  man  is  the 
same.  Equally,  too,  might  it  be  said  that  faith  even,  accord- 
ing  to  them,  was  consequent  upon  righteousness  and  salva- 
tion, not  antecedent  to  them  :  for  they  argue  the  necessity  of 
faith  for  obtaining  righteousness  and  salvation  (as  we  have 
just  reniarked)  from  tlie  necessity  of  love  for  obtaining  the 
same  benefit,  as  if  they  established  their  poiut  by  some  such 
process  as  the  following :  If  the  love  of  God  above  all  things 


VI. 


for  righteous7iess  and  salvation.  301 

is  necessary  for  obtaining  righteousness  or  salvation^  tlien  s  E  C  T, 
faith  also  is  necessary  for  the  same,  but  tlie  antecedeut  is 
truCj  therefore  also  the  consequent  is :  they  prove  the 
consequence  of  the  major  in  this  way,  that  the  love  of  God 
cannot  exist  in  a  man  without  faith,  and  thus  the  thing  is 
self-e^ädent.  Lastly,  the  Strasburg  di\-ines  expressly  say 
that  we  cannot  be  justified  or  become  righteous  in  any  other 
way  than  by  first  having  faith  gi^^en  ns,  by  which  we  depend 
whoUy  on  the  will  of  God,  that  is,  are  ready  and  prepared  to 
obey  God  in  all  things.  From  this  one  specimen  the  wary 
reader  may  conjectiire  how  mucli  confidence  is  to  be  placed 
in  the  good  judgment  or  straightforwardness  of  Dr.  Tully 
when  he  quotes  or  explains  the  rest  of  the  Reformed  Con- 
fessions. 


SECTION  YII. 

BEING  AN  APPENDIX  TO  THE  PRECEDING  SECTION. 

§  1.  I  confess  that  when  I  read  the  three  preceding  chap- 
ters  of  Dr.  TuUy's  work,  I  could  not  help  thinking  of  that 
line  of  the  poet, 

Quis  tulerit  Gracchos,  &c. 

for  the  reverend  gentleman  who  has  been  so  severe  against 
US  undeservingly,  (as  it  now  appears),  as  corrupters  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Chiu'ch,  is  himself  found  in  some  points  to 
have  opposed  certain  clear  definitions,  both  of  the  English, 
and  other  reformed  Churches,  and  of  the  Catholic  Church  as 
well.  And  to  prove  this  point  we  shall  devote  the  whole 
of  this  Section,  which  we  expect  will  be  of  a  considerable 
length.  We  do  not  this,  however,  merely  as  a  retaliation 
upon  the  Doctor  :  (that  were  a  mean  object :)  but  we  have 
thought  it  worth  while,  since  an  opportunity  offers  itself,  to 
assert  and  illustrate  the  true,  genuine,  and  Catholic  doctrine 
of  our  Church,  (noAV  well-nigh  lost  through  the  badncss  of 
the  times,)  on  certain  very  important  points  of  Christian 
religion. 

§  2.  First  then,  Dr.  Tully  openly  asserts  that  "repent- 


303  Homibj  of  Repentance, 

s  E  c  T.  ance,  or  true  contrition  for  sin,  is  iu  no  way  necessary  to  ob- 

XIIi—  tain  the  fii'st  justificatioü."     We  have  frequently  mentioned 

this,  and  have  brought  forward  passages  where  he  expressly 
gives  this  opinion,  (a  shameful  one,  indeed,  and  unworthy  of 
a  Church  of  England  divine,)  and,  moreover,  supports  it  with 
argnments.  It  has  also  been  proved  above  how  opposed 
Dr.  Tully  is  in  this  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  Fathers  of 
the  ancient  Church,  and  to  the  Coufessions  of  foreign  re- 
formed  Churches,  and  "vre  have  also  adduced  by  the  way 
certain  testimonies  of  our  Church  which  are  sufficieutly  at 
variance  "^ith  this  new  dogma.  Nevertheless,  eager  to  vin- 
dicate  our  holy  niother  from  so  base  an  eiTor,  in'everently 
ascribed  to  her  by  Dr.  Tully,  I  have  been  induced  to 
attempt  a  fuller  refutation  of  it  fi'om  our  Homilies  and 
Liturgy. 

§  3.  There  is  in  the  second  book  of  the  Homihes,  one 
Vf\\h.  this  title,  Of  Repentance  and  True  Reconciliation  to 
God.     Where   the   title  itself  clearly  teaches   us   that   re- 
pentance is  the  mean  or  absolutely  necessary  condition  for 
our  true  reconciliation  with  God ;  and  what  is  this  but  our 
justification  ?     The  writer  of  the  Homily  continually  asserts 
that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  please  God,  to  return  into  His 
favour,  or  to  escape   His  wrath  without  repentance.     If  it 
be  asked  of  what  kind  of  repentance  the  Homily  is  speak- 
ing,  this  is  explained  in  several  places.     In  the  first  part  of 
the  Homily  the  "writer  shews  from  the  Prophet  Joel  that 
the   whole   work   of  repentance   can   be   reduced   to  these 
four  heads.     1.  From  whence.     2.  To  whom.     3.  By  "whom. 
4.  The  manner  how  we  must  retui'n.     This   last  point  he 
[Hom.  B.  explains   as   follows.      "  Fourthly,   this   holy   Prophet   Joel 
^•P*'     J  doth  lively  express  the  manncr  of  this   oiu'  returniug  on 
repentance,    comprehending    all   the    inward    and    outward 
things  that  may  be  here  observed.     First,  he  will  have  us 
return  to  God  with  our  whole  heart,  whereby  he  doth  re- 
move  and  put  away  all  hypocrisy,  lest  the  same  might  be 
Is.  29.  13.  justly  Said  unto  us :    'This  people   draweth  near  unto  Me 
Mat.  1.3.     with  their  mouth,  and  worshippcth  ]Me  with  theii*  lips,  but 
^'  ^'  theii'  heart  is  far  off  from  Me.'     Secoudly,  he  requireth  a 

sincere  and  pure  love  of  godliness,  and  of  the  true  wor- 
shipping  and  service  of  God,  that  is  to  say,  that,  forsaking 


and  True  Reconciliation  to  God.  303 

all  manner  of  things  that  are  repugnant  and  contrary  to  SECT. 
God's  will,  we  do  give  our  hearts  unto  Hirn,  and  the  whole 1_ 


strength  of  our  bodies  and  souls,  according  to  tliat  which.  is 
written  in  the  law :  '  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God,  Deut.  6. 5. 
witli  all  tliy  heart,  witli  all  tliy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 
miglit.'  Here,  therefore,  nothing  is  left  unto  us  that  we 
may  give  unto  the  world,  and  unto  the  lusts  of  the  flesli. 
For  sith  that  the  heart  is  the  fountain  of  all  our  works,  as 
many  as  do  witli  their  whole  heart  turn  unto  the  Lord,  do 
live  unto  Hirn  only.  Neither  do  they  yet  repent  tnily,  that 
halting  on  both  sides,  do  other  whiles  obey  God,  but  by  and 
by  do  think  that  laying  Hirn  aside  it  is  lawful  for  them  to 
serve  the  world  and  the  flesh."  In  the  second  part  of  the 
same  Homily,  true  repentance  necessary  for  reconciliation 
with  God  is  thus  described ;  as  "  a  true  returning  unto  God,  [p.  477.] 
whereby  men  forsaking  their  idolatry  and  wickedness,  do 
with  a  lively  faith  embrace,  love,  and  worship  the  true  and 
li^dng  God  only,  and  give  themselves  to  all  manner  of  good 
works,  which  by  God's  word  they  know  to  be  acceptable 
unto  Him/^  Soon  after  the  author  enumerates  the  parts  of 
this  repentance,  "  which,  being  set  together,  may  be  likened 
to  an  easy  and  short  ladder,  whereby  we  may  climb  from 
the  bottomless  pit  of  perdition  up  into  the  Castle  or  tower  of 
eternal  and  endless  salvation."  He  makes  these  parts  to  be 
four ;  genuine  contrition  of  heart,  sincere  confession  of  sin,  a 
true  confidence  in  Christ  our  Mediator,  and  a  firm  purpose 
of  a  new  life.  Of  the  first,  he  teaches  from  David,  that  it  is 
the  only  sacrifice  we  can  offer  pleasing  and  acceptable  to 
God.  Of  the  second,  he  shews  also  from  Da^dd  that  if  we 
confess  our  sins  with  a  sorrowful  and  contrite  heart,  God  will 
freely  forgive  them.  And  lastly,  of  the  fourth  he  expressly 
teaches  us,  that  "  if  we  will  have  the  wrath  of  God  to  be  [p.  483.] 
pacified,  we  must  in  no  wise  dissemble,  but  turn  unto  Hirn 
again,  with  a  true  and  sound  repentance,  which  may  be 
known  and  declared  by  good  fruits,  as  by  most  sure  and 
infallible  signs  thereof."  And  presently  he  does  not  shrink 
from  saying,  that  "  the  satisfaction  which  God  doth  require 
from  US,  is  that  we  cease  from  e\il,  and  do  good.^^  Surely 
nothiug  can  be  clcarer  and  raore  cxplicit  than  these 
passages. 


304  Teaching  of  our  Liturgy, 

s  E  c  T.        &  4.  From   the    Homilies    let   us   turn   to   our   Liturgy. 

VII  •  •       • 

'- —  Almost  in  the  very  beginuing  of  it^  the  form  of  Absolution  is 

ordered  to  be  pronounced  by  the  Priest  daily  at  Morning 
and  Evening  Prayer.  It  is  tliere  said,  that  ''  God  hath  given 
power  and  commandment  to  His  ministers,  to  declare  and 
pronounce  to  His  people,  being  penitent,  the  absolution  and 
remission  of  their  sins.  He  (that  is,  God)  pardoneth  and 
absolveth  all  them  that  truly  repent,  and  unfeignedly  believe 
His  Holy  Gospel/^  that  is.  He  justifies  them.  Agreeable  to 
this  is  the  Absolution  to  be  said  by  the  Priest,  turning  him- 
self  to  the  people,  before  the  participation  of  the  Lord's 
Supper :  its  words  are,  "  Almighty  God,  our  heavenly  Father, 
Who  of  His  great  mercy  hath  promised  forgiveness  of  sins  to 
all  them  that  with  liearty  repentance  and  true  faith  turn 
unto  Him ;  have  mercy  upon  you :  pardon  and  deliver  you 
from  all  your  sins,^^  &c.  The  Collect  for  the  Wednesday  after 
Quinquagesima  Sunday,  commonly  called  Ash  Wednesday, 
which  is  used  daily  in  Lent,  is,  "Almighty  and  everlasting 
God,  Who  batest  nothing  that  Thou  hast  made,  and  dost  for- 
give  the  sins  of  all  them  that  are  penitent :  create  and  make 
in  US  new  and  contrite  hearts,  that  we  worthily  lamenting 
our  sins  and  acknowledging  our  wretchedness,  may  obtain  of 
Thee,  the  God  of  all  mercy,  perfect  remission  and  forgiveness ; 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  Amen.^^  In  the  Office 
called  a  Commination  appointed  for  the  same  day,  the  Priest, 
after  having  recited  God's  cursings  against  impenitent  sinners 
taken  out  of  the  Law,  is  ordered  thus  to  address  the  people : 
"  Now  seeing  that  all  thcy  are  accm-sed  (as  the  Prophet  David 
beareth  witness)  who  do  err  and  go  astray  from  the  command- 
ments  of  God,  let  us  (remcmbering  the  dreadful  judgment 
hanging  over  our  heads,  and  always  rcady  to  fall  upon  us) 
return  unto  our  Lord  God,  with  all  contrition  and  meekuess 
of  heart;  bewailing  and  lamenting  our  sinful  life,  acknow- 
ledging and  confessing  our  offcnces,  and  secking  to  bring 
forth  worthy  fruits  of  penance.  '  For  now  is  the  axe  put  to 
the  root  of  the  trees,  &c.^  Let  us  not  abuse  the  goodness  of 
God  Who  calleth  us  mercifully  to  amendment,  and  of  His 
endless  pity  promiscth  us  forgiveness  of  that  which  is  past, 
if  with  a  i)erfect  and  true  heart  we  return  unto  Him ;  '  For 
though  our  sins  be  as  red  as  scarlet,  they  shall  be  made 


and  of  our  most  approved  divines,  305 

white  as  snow,  &c.^     Let  us  therefore  return  unto  Hirn  Wlio  s  E  C  T. 
is  the  merciful  receiver  of  all  true  penitent  siiiners ;  assuring      ^^^' 


oiirselves  tliat  He  is  ready  to  receive  us,  and  most  williug  to 
pardon  us  if  we  come  unto  Hirn  with  faitMul  repentance,  if 
we  submit  ourselves  unto  Hirn/'  &c.  Sm-ely  in  all  tliese 
passages  the  words  are  so  elear  that  they  cannot  want  any 
deductions  or  observations  from  us,  in  order  to  be  made 
plainer.  He  must  be  in  more  than  Cimmerian  darkness  who 
does  not  at  once  perceive  how  constant  is  the  teaching  of 
our  Church,  that  true  contrition  for  sin,  and  a  thorough  con- 
version  of  the  heart  to  God,  is  the  absolute  condition  for  ob- 
taining  remission  of  sins,  and  the  acceptance  of  God,  that  is, 
for  justification.  And  they  wlio  have  not  yet  learned  tliis 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  religion,  or  who  have  unlearnt  it, 
must  be  sent  back  to  our  Cateehism.  The  child  is  asked 
concerning  the  sacrament  of  Baptism,  "  What  is  required  of 
persons  to  be  baptized?"  and  is  taught  to  answer,  "Re- 
pentance,  whereby  they  forsake  sin;  and  faith,  whereby  they 
steadfastly  believe  the  promises  of  God  made  to  them  in  that 
sacrament."  Now  surely,  to  say  that  not  only  faith,  but 
repentance  also  is  required  for  recei\ing  the  grace  of  Bap- 
tism, is  the  same  as  saying  that  repentance,  as  well  as  faith,  is 
requisite  for  justification,  as  has  already  been  proved  above,  and  sec.  iv.  9. 
to  any  one  in  bis  senses  must  be  sufl&ciently  piain  of  itself. 

§  5.  And  now,  if  any  one  is  desirous  to  know  what  is  the 
teaching  of  the  approved  divines  of  oui'  Church  on  this 
point,  (alas,  that  a  principle  of  the  Christian  and  indeed  of 
all  religion  should  be  called  in  question  by  a  Christian !) 
they  all  with  one  voice  preach  the  necessity  of  repentance 
for  remission  of  sins,  that  is,  for  justification.  I  will  quote 
three  great  witnesses  who  may  answer  not  only  for  them- 
selvcs,  but  for  all  divines  both  of  our  own  and  all  reformed 
Churches.  We  have  already  heard  the  learned  Field  assert- 
ing  that  this  is  the  common  doctrine  of  the  ancient  Fathers, 
and  of  all  Protestants;  that  the  works  of  preventing  grace 
comprchended  in  the  word  'conversion^  are  absolutely  re- 
quired in  a  man,  so  that  he  may  be  disposed  and  prcpared 
by  the  same,  to  receive  the  grace  of  justification;  which 
that  great  divine  again  declares  morc  expressly  in  the  same  ^^ppcn<l; 
chapter,  when,  on  Stapleton  objccting  against  Protestants,  ^g  Eccles. 

BULL.  X  P-  29S. 


306  Field,  White,  Morton. 

S  E  c  T.  tliat  they  taught  that  our  justification  consisted  in  tlie  re- 

: —  mission  of  sins  by  faith  only,  but  that  the  sacraments  did 

not  avail  towards  it,  he  replies,  not  witbout  some  Indignation, 
"  And  tbis  too  is  false :   for  tbeir  teacbing  is  plainly  otber- 
■wise :  namely,  tbat  Baptism  and  repentance  are  of  necessity 
required  for  a  man^s  first  justification."     Witb  bim  agrees 
also   tbe   learned   Francis  White,  who   in   bis    'Answer  to 
Fisber/  a  Jesuit,  who  objected  against  us  tbat  we  reject  the 
sacrament  of  penauce,  and  of  priestly  absolution,  which  is 
the  necessary  means  for  obtaining  remission  of  sins  com- 
p.  185,180.  mitted  after    Baptism,   says,   "The    objector,   by  penance, 
understandeth  not  repentance  as  it  is  a  virtue,  for  Protestants 
bebeve  true  repentance  to  be  a  second  table  after  spiritual 
shipwreck,  and  a  necessary  means  of  remission  of  sins  com- 
mitted  after  Baptism."     Tbis  he  proves  in  the  margin  from 
De  Relig.  Caldn,  Beza,  and  Zanchius,  whose  words  he  quotes.     "  We 
j"     ■  *  ^^'  believe  that  repentance  is  necessaiy  for  tbe  true  pai'taking 
of  tbe  nghteousness  of  Christ,  and  so  for  communion  with 
Cbi-ist,  by  which  repentance  we  return  from  our  sins  and 
the  World  to  Christ,  with  a  change  of  heart  and  will,  we  are 
joined  to  Him,  and  so  obtain  remission  of  sins  in  Him  and  by 
Him."     The  great  ^Morton  defends  the  same  doctrine  in  his 
lib.5.c.  16.  clear  treatise   called,  ^A  Catholic  Appeal  for  Protestants,' 
wbere,  amongst  other  ways,  he  thus  meets  his  Opponent  who 
charges   tbe    reformed  with    the    Solifidianism    of    ancient 
heretics.     "They"  (that  is,  tbe  reformed)  "require  a  bving 
faith  and  a  serious  repentance,  witbout  which  no  man  can  be 
justified."     And  he  confirms  tbis  in  the  margin  by  tbis  most 
Bell,  de     rcmarkablc  confession  of  Bellarmine  himself.     "  These  and 
6 'rvol"iv  ^^^  ^^^^  proofs  shew  clearly  tbat  something  is  required  in  us 
Op-  p-       in  Order  that  we  may  be  justified,  nor  can  our  opponents 
■■'       deny  tbis,  who,  altbougb  they  say  that  remission  does  not 
depend  on  any  condition  of  works,  and  tbat  neitber  repent- 
ance or  faith,  or  any  act  of  ours  is  the  meritorious  cause  of 
our  justification,  yet  do  not  deny  that  faith  and  repentance, 
yca  lively  faith,  and  a  serious  repentance  are  required,  and 
that  witbout  tbcse  no  one  can  be  justified."     It  would  be 
easy,  if  it  were  necessary,  to  add  many  othcr  proofs  from  other 
authors,  but  let  us  ratber  proceed  to  some  others  of  tlie 
Doctor's  unortbodox  tenets. 


Obedience  preserves  justification.  307 

§  6.  Secondly,  Dr.  Tully  teaches  tliat  "  the  continuation  S  E  c  T. 
or  preservation  of  our  justification^  wliich  lias  been  already 


obtained  by  faitli  only,  in  no  wise  depends  on  tlie  condition 
of  good  works  being  performed  by  us  for  the  future."  He 
studiously  inculcates  this,  by  far  the  most  dangerous  of  his 
dogmas^  throughout  his  whole  work.  For  he  every  where 
asserts  that  all  the  works  which  follow  justifying  faith  con- 
tribute  nothing  towards  a  man's  justification;  and  he  laughs 
at  their  folly  who  think  otherwise.  He  leans  on  this  sup- 
position^  that  a  man  already  justified  cannot  possibly  be 
further  justified^  or  that  the  first  justification  is  absolute, 
which  I  have  frequently  shewn  to  be  absurd.  Moreover  he  Just.  Paul, 
expressly  denies  that  obedience  to  God's  commands  is  a  P'  ^  ' 
condition  of  our  justification,  and  then  he  shews  what  a  con- 
dition is,  namely,  that  whereon  the  eflFect  of  a  transaction,  p.  169. 
or  (as  others  have  it)  a  disposition  depends,  and  then  pro- 
ceeds  to  argue  against  his  opponents  in  the  foUowing  way. 
"  Hence,  therefore,  all  notions  of  justification  depending  on 
the  condition  of  works  fall  to  the  ground :  for  we  prove  it 
thus :  if  good  works  are  the  condition  of  the  justification  we 
are  speaking  of,  then  justification  depends  on  them :  but 
this  is  impossible,  therefore  they  are  not  the  condition  of 
justification."  The  minor  proposition  of  which  argument  he 
proves  from  all  works  which  precede  the  first  justification 
ha^dng  the  nature  of  sin :  and  that  those  works  which  follow 
the  first  justification  should  contribute  any  thing  towards  it, 
is,  as  he  says,  a  flat  contradiction.  Nay,  a  little  whüe  after 
he  boldly  denies  that  good  works  are  the  conditions,  properly  p.i72,i73. 
so  called,  of  obtaining  salvation.  His  words  are  :  "  We  briefly 
and  openly  deny  that  even  the  most  excellent  works  of  man 
are  the  conditions,  properly  so  called,  of  obtaining  glory; 
since  before  works,  that  is,  in  justification  itself,  the  faithful 
enjoy  this  right  to  eternal  salvation."  Let  us  now  see  how 
well  this  theology  of  the  Doctor's  agrecs  with  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  of  England,  as  expressly  laid  down  in  the  Homi- 
lies  and  Articles.  In  the  Homily  on  Salvation,  towards  the 
end  of  the  first  part,  the  Church  expressly  teaches  (as  I  have 
also  shewn  above)  that  because  the  first  justification  is 
obtained  by  faith,  joined  with  the  internal  virtues  of  hope, 
love,  repentance,  &c.  that  on  that  account  the  righteousness 

x2 


308  Indefectibility  offaith, 

s  E  c  T.  of  works  to  be  performed  of  necessity  afterwards  is  in  no 

'- —  wise  excluded :  and  what  sort  of  necessity  tliere  is  for  tliose 

good  works  following  tlie  first  justification  is  explained  in  the 
Honiily  on  Good  Works,  part  tlie  first^,  near  the  end,  where 
tlie  aiithor  of  the  Homily  quotes  and  approves  of  the  words  of 
St,  Chrysostom  on  the  believing  thief ;  "If  he  had  Hved  and 
not  regarded  faith  and  the  -works  thereof,  he  should  have 
lost  his  salvation  again."  But  what  need  of  many  words  ? 
Our  Chui'ch  in  the  sLxteenth  article  expressly  teaches  that  "  a 
man  after  he  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  may  depart  from 
grace  given  and  fall  into  sin,  deadly  sin ;"  so  that  he  must 
be  blinding  his  eyes  to  the  mid-day  sun,  who  does  not  perceive 
that  oui"  Church  holds  that  the  continuation  or  preservation 
of  our  justification  entirely  depends  on  the  condition  of  good 
works  being  afterwards  performed  by  us;  whicli,  however, 
oui'  reverend  antagonist  strenuously  denies.  Let  us  proceed. 
§  7.  Dr.  Tully  in  the  third  place  teaches  that  '^a  man 
once  imbued  with  justifying  faith,  cannot  possibly  entirely 
fall  away  from  it  or  peiish  everlastingly.'^  He  even  thrusts 
this  dogma  (than  which  hardly  any  can  be  more  dangerous) 
into  his  Catecliism  or  Enchiridion  as  an  undoubted  principle 
of  the  Christian  religion,  to  be  believed  by  candidates  in 
divinity.  For  in  the  nintli  chapter  on  faith,  after  he  has 
divided  faith  into  four  kinds,  namely,  miraculous,  historical, 
temporaneous,  and  justifying,  he  goes  on  to  teach  how  these 
three  former  species  of  faith  are  distinguished  fi'om  justifying 
faith,  namely,  both  in  their  principle  as  in  their  subject. 
And  treating  of  this  latter  difference,  he  thus  instructs  his 
catechvmien.  A.  "Teil  me  the  diflFerent  subjects."  B.  "The 
subject  of  justifying  faith  is  a  man  elected  to  life  and  born  of 
God.  The  subjects  of  the  other  kinds  of  faith  may  be  sons 
of  pcrdition,  hj-pocrites,  &c."  So  that  according  to  the 
Doctor's  divinity,  whoever  is  once  endued  with  justifying 
faith,  is  chosen  by  God  to  lifo  etcrnal  in  such  a  way  that  he 
never  can  become  the  son  of  perdition.  I  allow  indeed  that 
Dr.  Tully  has  not  a  few  nor  insignificant  of  our  divines  as  his 
leaders  in  this  error,  namely,  those  who  flourished  in  those 
times  whcn  by  certain  men's  artifices,  who  were  greatly  given 
to  the  thcology  of  Geneva,  things  had  got  to  such  a  state  that 
it  was  scarcely  lawful  to  interpret  either  tlie  decrees  of  our 


not  a  doctrine  ofthe  Church  of  England.  309 

Churcli  or  eveu  the  Scriptures  themselves  otherwise  than  s  E  c  T. 

according  to  the  Standard  of  Calvin's  Institutes.     And  tliere- '■ — 

fore  tlieir  error  must  be  pardoned,  on  account  of  the  times 
in  which  they  lived.  Indeed  eveiy  age,  as  some  one  has 
exeellentlj  observed^  has  as  it  were  its  own  flood  of  opinions, 
to  which  if  any  one  oppose  himself,  he  is  either  carried  along 
by  it,  or  overwheLned.  Nor  were  there  wanting  all  that 
time  grave  and  learned  men  in  our  Chui'ch,  who  daied 
openly  to  oppose  the  growing  error.  But,  however  these 
things  may  be,  I  do  not  doubt  but  that  I  shall  easily  per- 
suade  any  one,  who  is  not  incurably  prejudiced,  that  this 
doctrine  of  Dr.  Tully,  which  he  sends  forth  as  with  oracular 
authority,  is  altogether  at  variance  both  with  the  decrees  of 
our  o\\n  Church  and  with  the  best  of  the  Confessions  of 
foreign  reformed  Churches,  and  finally,  with  the  judgment  of 
all  Catholic  antiquity. 

§  8.  First,  then,  the  opinion  of  the  English  Church  on 
Perseverance  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  sixteenth  article  in 
these  words.  ''  Not  every  deadly  sin  wiUingly  committed 
after  Baptism  is  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  unpardon- 
able.  TVherefore  the  grant  of  repentance  is  not  to  be  denied 
to  such  as  fall  into  sin  after  Baptism.  After  we  have  received 
the  Holy  Ghost,  we  may  depart  from  grace  given  and  fall 
into  sin,  and  by  the  grace  of  God  we  may  arise  again,  and 
amend  our  lives.  And  therefore,  they  are  to  be  condemned 
which  say  they  can  no  more  sin  as  long  as  they  live  here,  or 
deny  the  place  of  forgiveness  to  such  as  truly  repent."  On 
which  the  learned  prelate  Overall  rightly  observes  that  that 
sin  by  which  we  are  said  to  depart  from  grace,  is  called  in  the 
beginning  of  the  article,  "  deadly  sin  willingly  committed." 
The  preceding  article,  the  fifteenth,  in  fact  treats  of  daily 
sins  which  are  common  to  all  regenerate  persons,  in  Avhicli 
we  ofiFend  all,  the  grace  within  us  remaining  still  safe,  and  we 
not  departing  from  it.  But  this  sixteenth  article  treats  of 
deadly  sin  by  which  a  man  depart s  fi'om  grace  given,  after 
having  received  the  Holy  Ghost  and  Baptism,  and  continues 
so  until  his  recoverj^  by  mcans  of  repentance.  But  that  our 
Church  conccivcs  that  this  departing  from  grace  may  be 
'final'  as  it  is  called,  may  be  clearly  gathered  from  the  fact 
that  the  article  is  evidently  speaking  of  the  recovery  of  those 


310  Recovery  after  sin  not  infallible. 

s  E  c  T.  fallen  into  deadly  sins,  by  means  of  repentance,  as  of  a  con- 

\ : —  tingent  thing  wliich  miglit  iudeed  take  place,  but  wliicb  also 

migbt  not.  "  We  may  depart,"  it  says,  "  from  grace  given, 
and  we  may  arise  again  and  amend  our  Uves.""  For  who  in 
bis  senses,  and  free  from  party  spirit,  will  imagine  tbat  tbe 
beads  of  oiu'  Cburcb  meant  to  say,  even  if  tbey  themselves 
believed  it  or  wisbed  tbat  otbers  sbould,  tbat  tbe  recovery  by 
repentance  of  all  tbose  wbo  once  bad  been  true  believers,  and 
bad  afterwards  departed  from  grace  given  tbrougb  grievous 
sins,  was  certain  and  infalbble?  Wbat  grammar,  I  ask,  (to 
use  tbe  Doctor^s  expressions,)  will  bear  tbis  meaning :  "  we 
may  again  arise  and  amend  our  lives/^  tbat  is,  "  we  certainly 
sball  arise  and  repent  ?" 

§  9.  K  any  person  is  not  satisfied  witb  tbese  passages,  let 

bim  consult  tbe  book  of  Homibes,  wbicb  was  put  fortb  at 

tbe  same  time  as  our  Ai'ticles  were,  and  confirmed  by  tbe 

autbority  of  tbe  same  Synod.     Our  Cburcb  tbere  so  often 

and  so  expbcitly  gives  ber  opinion  concerning  tbe  defecti- 

bility  of  justifying  faitb,  tbat  I  bave  often  wondered  bow  it 

was  possible  for  so  many  learned  and  intelbgent  men,  wbo, 

it  is  probable,  must  bave  read  tbe  Homilies  over  and  over 

again,  to  be  Ignorant  of  it.    In  tbe  first  book  tbere  is  a  wbole 

llomily  of  tbe  danger  of  faUing  from  God,  tbe  sole  end  and 

object  of  wbicb  is  to  sbew  tbat  a  man  may,  after  baving 

rcceived  grace,  fall  away  from  tbe  same  and  perisb,  and  tbat 

tbcrcfore  all  mcn  sbould  carefuUy  beware  of  tbe  danger  of  so 

Hnm.i.[p.  tcrriblc  a  falling  away.     In  tbe  first  part  of  tbis  Horaily,  we 

'  '     ■-'     read,  "  For  wbereas,  God  batb  sliewed  to  all  tbem  tbat  truly 

bebeve  llis  Gospel,  His  face  of  mercy  in  Jesus  Cbi'ist,  wliicb 

dotb  so  ligbten  tbeir  bearts,  tbat  tbey  (if  tbey  bebold  it  as 

tbcy  ougbt  to  do)  be  transformcd  to  His  image,  be  made  par- 

takcrs  of  tbe  bcavenly  ligbt  and  of  His  Holy  Spmt,  and  be 

fasbioned  to  Hirn  in  all  goodness  requisite  to  tbe  cbildren  of 

God :  so  if  tbey  after  do  neglcct  tbe  same,  if  tbey  be  un- 

tbankfid  to  Hirn,  if  tbey  ordcr  not  tbeir  bves  according  to 

His  example  and  doctrine,  and  to  tbe  setting  fortb  of  His 

glory,  IIc  will  take  away  from  tbem  His  kingdom,  His  boly 

Word,  wbcreby  He  sbould  reign  in  tbem,  because  tliey  bring 

not  fortb  tbe  fruit  tbereof  tbat  He  looketb  for.    Nevertbclcss 

He  is  so  mcrciful,  and  of  so  long  sutfcraucc  tbat  IIc  dotb  not 


The  regener ate  may,  and  do  fall  away.  311 

shew  upon  us  that  great  wrath  suddenly.  But  when  we  SECT. 
begia  to  shrink  from  His  word^  not  believing  it,  or  not  —  - 
expressing  it  in  cur  livings :  first  He  doth  send  His  mes- 
sengers^  the  true  preachers  of  His  word,  to  admonisli  and 
warn  us  of  our  duty  &c.  And  if  this  will  not  serre,  but  still 
we  remain  disobedient  to  His  word  and  will,  not  knöwing 
Hirn,  not  lo^ing  Hirn,  not  fearing  Hirn,  not  putting  our  wliole 
trust  and  confidence  in  Him;  and  on  the  other  side  to  our 
neighbours,  behaving  ourselves  uneharitably,  by  disdain, 
envy,  malice,  or  by  committing  murder,  robbery,  adultery, 
gluttony,  deceit,  lying,  swearing,  or  otber  like  detestable 
works  and  ungodly  bebaviour,  then  He  tbi'eatenetli  us  by 
terrible  comminations,  swearing  in  great  anger  that  '  whoso-  Heb.  3 ; 
ever  doth  these  works  shall  never  enter  into  His  rest/  which  i  cor 'e 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  In  which  passage  the  writer  of 
the  Homily  is  speaking  of  those  who  truly  believe  the  Gospel, 
are  transformed  to  the  image  of  God,  are  made  partakers  of 
the  heavenly  light  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  are  fashioned 
to  all  goodness  requisite  for  the  chüdren  of  God  :  and  yet  of 
the  very  same  persous  he  no  less  elearly  teaches  that  if  they 
are  ungrateful  to  God  after  such  great  blessiugs  &c..  He  will 
take  from  tliem  His  kingdom.  It  is  in  vain  to  recur  to  that 
old  piece  of  sophistry,  (which  Dr.  Tully  makes  use  of  in  a 
question  not  unhke  the  present,)  "that  no  supposition  goes 
any  way  towards  pronng  reality  :  for  instance  ;  If  Caius  is  an 
animal  without  reason,  he  will  be  a  brüte :  does  not  in  any 
wise  prove  this,  that  Caius  can  be  an  animal  without  reason." 
For  in  the  first  place,  the  autlior,  in  the  beginning  and  at  the 
end,  and  through  the  whole  Homily,  urges  most  vehemently 
upon  his  hearers,  threatens  them,  thunders  in  their  ears, 
beseeches  and  implores  tliem  by  every  thing  that  is  sacred,  to 
be  exceeding  careful  lest  they  fall  away  from  grace  given,  and 
so  perish  everlastingly.  And  therefore  he  never  could  have 
thought  he  was  bringiug  forward  the  supposition  of  an 
impossibility.  It  would  certainly  be  most  absurd  and  sense- 
less  to  urge  upon  Caius,  in  a  long  and  earnest  spcech,  that  he 
should  anxiously  bcware  lest,  by  losing  his  reason,  he  should 
become  (properly  speaking)  a  brüte.  Such  a  metamorphosis 
as  this  poctry  itself  has  scarccly  admitted.  And  secondly,  the 
words  which  have  becn  quotcd  most  plainly  shew  the  possi- 


312  Unfruitful  branches  cut  off, 

s  E  c  T.  bility  and  not  unfrequent  occurrence  of  persons  truly  regene- 

'- —  rated  by  Christ^   aud  endued  witli  justif\-ing  faith,  falling 

away  for  ever  from  tlie  kingdom  of  God^  tlirougli  ingratitude 
and  continued  contempt  of  Di\-iue  grace.  In  fact,  the  author 
of  the  Homily  describes  tlie  very  Avay  Tvhich  tlie  Lord  is  wont 
to  use  towards  these  most  wi'etcbed  apostates,  as  it  were 
gradually  and  step  by  step.  For  he  teaches  us  that  the  most 
nierciful  God  does  not  poiir  forth  His  anger  upon  ungrateful 
men  suddenly^  nor  does  He  deseii:  them  for  ever,  who  have 
deserted  Hirn,  but  that  He  ti'ies  eveiy  remedy  before  He  cuts 
off  the  putrefring  members  from  the  body  of  Christ :  for  when 
first  they  begin  to  shrink  from  His  Avord,  He  wai'ns  them  of 
their  duty  by  His  messengers ;  and  then,  if  this  will  not  serve, 
if  they  obstinately  reject  these  remedies  of  grace,  He  casts 
them  away  as  desperate  and  destroyed  for  ever,  swearing  in 
His  great  anger,  that  is,  determining  by  a  peremptory  decree, 
that  they  shall  not  enter  His  rest,  which  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven. 
[p.  76,77.]  §  10.  In  the  second  part  of  the  same  Homily  the  author 
'  '  '  '  proves  this  same  doctrine  from  the  parable  of  the  vine  in 
Isaiah,  as  follows  :  "  By  these  threatenings  we  are  monished 
and  Avarned,  that  if  we,  Avhich  are  the  chosen  vineyard  of 
God,  bring  not  forth  good  grapes,  that  is  to  say,  good  works 
that  may  be  delectable  and  pleasant  in  His  sight,  when  He 
looketh  for  them,  when  He  sendeth  His  messengers  to  call 
upon  US  for  them,  but  rather  bring  forth  wild  grapes,  that  is 
to  say,  sour  works,  unsweet,  unsavoury,  and  unfruitful :  then 
will  He  pluck  away  all  defence,  and  suffer  grievous  plagues 
of  famine,  and  battle,  dearth  and  death,  to  light  upon  us. 
Finally,  if  these  do  not  yet  serve.  He  will  let  us  lie  waste, 
He  wiU  gi\e  us  over.  He  will  turu  away  from  us.  He  will 
dig  and  delve  no  more  about  us.  He  will  let  us  alone,  and 
suffer  US  to  bring  forth  even  such  fruit  as  we  will,  to  bring 
forth  brambles,  briars  and  thorns,  all  naughtiness,  aU  vice, 
and  that  so  abundantly,  that  they  shall  clean  over-grow  us, 
choke,  strangle  and  utterly  destroy  us."  He  presently  illus- 
tratcs  this  tremcndous  dispensatiou  of  Divine  Providence 
by  the  following  simile.  "  The  father  as  long  as  he  loveth 
his  child,  he  looketh  angerly,  he  correcteth  him  when  he 
doth  amiss;  but  when  that  servcth  not,  and  upon  that  he 


and  delivered  to  the  power  of  Satan.  313 

ceaseth  from  correction  of  him,  and  suffereth  him  to  do  what  s  E  c  T. 
he  list  himselfj  it  is  a  sign  tliat  he  intendeth  to  disinherit  — -^^' 
him,  and  to  east  him  away  for  ever/^  Shortly  afterwards  he 
thus  explains  the  afore-mentioned  parable.  "  Whence  it  is 
clear  that  God  at  length  doth  so  forsake  His  unfruitful  vine- 
yard,  that  He  will  not  only  suffer  it  to  bring  forth  weeds, 
briars  and  thorns ;  but  also,  further  to  punish  the  unfruitful- 
ness  of  it.  He  saith  He  will  not  cut  it,  He  will  not  delve  it, 
and  He  will  command  the  clouds  that  they  shall  not  rain 
upon  it :  whereby  is  signified  the  teacliing  of  His  Holy  Word 
which  St,  Paul,  after  a  like  manner,  expressed  by  planting 
and  watering,  meaniug  that  He  will  take  that  away  from 
them :  so  that  they  shall  be  no  longer  of  His  kingdom,  they 
shall  be  no  longer  governed  by  His  Holy  Spirit,  they  shall 
be  put  from  the  grace  and  benefits  that  they  had,  and  eveu 
might  have  enjoyed  through  Christ ;  they  shall  be  deprived 
of  the  heavenly  light  and  life  which  they  had  in  Christ, 
whilst  they  abode  in  Him  :  they  shall  be  (as  they  were  once) 
without  God  in  this  world,  or  ratlier  in  Avorse  taking.  And 
to  be  short,  they  shall  be  given  into  the  power  of  the  devil, 
which  beareth  the  rule  in  them  that  be  cast  away  fi'om  God, 
as  he  did  in  Saul  and  Judas,  and  generally  in  all  such  as 
work  after  their  own  wills,  the  children  of  mistrust,  and  un- 
beHef.  Let  us  beware  therefore,  good  Christian  people,  lest 
that  we  rejecting  or  casting  away  God^s  "Word  (by  the  which 
we  obtain  and  retain  true  faith  in  God)  be  not  at  length  cast 
off  so  far  that  we  become  as  the  children  of  unbelief/^  Is  it 
possible  that  any  one,  unless  from  mere  obstinacy,  could 
mistake  the  meaning  of  such  passages  ?  For  first  the  author 
speaks  of  the  apostacy  of  true  believers,  namely  of  those  who 
once  belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  were  governed  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  had  been  given  such  blessings  Avhich  if 
they  had  kept  would  have  made  them  happy  for  ever,  and 
had  been  made  partakers  through  Him  of  light  and  heavenly 
life ;  and  then  he  speaks  of  the  total  apostacy  of  these  same, 
how  they  are  deprived  altogether  of  light  and  heavenly  life, 
how  they  become  the  same  as  they  were  beforc  their  cou- 
version,  even  in  a  worse  coudition ;  how,  in  short,  without  God 
in  the  world,  they  are  subdued  into  the  dominion  of  the 
devil.     Thcn  their  final  apostacy  is  treatcd  of  who  once  were 


314  Warning  from  the  case  of  Saul  and  Judas. 

S  E  c  T.  true  believers,  as  of  those  who  are  become  like  the  vineyard, 
— HL_  deserted  by  God,  and  given  up  to  perpetual  desolation,  which 
the  Lord  will  neither  cut  nor  delve,  nor  water  any  more,  the 
Holy  Spirit  will  no  longer  rule,  nor  will  they  any  more  enjoy 
the  light  of  Christ  or  heavenly  life,  whom  God  at  last  casts 
away,  as  He  did  Saul  and  Judas.  Lastly^  it  is  as  clear  as 
the  noou-day  sun,  that  the  writer  of  the  Homily  does  not 
speak  of  tliese  things  as  an  empty  hypothesis^  on  the  supposi- 
tion  of  an  impossibility  or  of  something  that  never  did  and 
never  will  happen ;  but  on  the  contrary,  he  is  describing  the 
ordinary  dispensation  which  God  is  really  wont  to  exercise 
towards  those  who  forsake  Hirn.  For  he  applies  the  parable 
of  the  vine  in  Isaiah^  to  the  subject  of  which  he  is  treating, 
namely  the  apostacy  of  true  believers^  where  it  is  piain  that 
the  prophet  is  teaching  not  what  God  might  do  on  some  im- 
possible  hypothesis,  but  what  He  really  did  to  the  people  of 
Israel^  and  is  aceustomed  to  do  to  all  those  who  imitate  their 
ingratitude.  Then  these  words,  "They  shall  be  put  from 
the  grace  and  benefits  that  they  had,  and  ever  might  have 
enjoyed  through  Christ/'  &c.,  plainly  shew  that  there  are 
really  some  who  shall  in  no  wise  enjoy  for  ever  the  life-giving 
blessings  of  Christ,  which  they  had  once  received. 

Moreover  the  author  of  the  Homily  seriously  exhorts  his 
brethren  in  Christ  to  beware  lest  by  rejecting  the  word  of 
God,  which  alone  is  able  to  preserve  true  faitb,  they  tliem- 
selves  be  cast  away  and  become  the  sons  of  rebellion  and 
pcrdition.  But  how  useless,  how  ridiculous  were  all  these 
warnings,  if  the  salvation  of  all  those  who  were  once  true 
bclievers,  Avere  certain  and  infallible !  Who  ever  heard  a 
Calvinist  preach  in  that  strain?  Finally,  Saul  and  Judas 
are  given  us  as  cxamplcs  of  tliis  fearful  falling  away  from 
God.  As  to  whom  it  will  be  useless  to  object  that  they 
never  had  true  justifying  grace.  For  even  if  this  were 
grantcd,  contrary  to  the  authority  of  the  Homily,  which  is 
supportcd  by  some  weighty  reasons,  it  would  be  nothing  to  the 
purpose,  sincc  our  sole  object  at  present  is  to  shew  what  was 
the  opinion  of  the  writer  of  the  llomilj'-,  and  not  how  clcverly 
he  has  proved  it  from  Scripture.  It  is  worth  noticing,  how- 
cver,  that  in  this  point,  as  throughout  the  whole  Homily,  the 
author  has  closely  followcd  Melancthon,  who  every  where 


Danger  of  apostacy  taught  by  St.  Peter.  315 

teaches  that  Saul  once  was  a  rigliteous  man  and  gifted  with  s  E  C  T. 

V  T  T 

tlie  Holy  Spirit.    Thus  in  his  Loci  Communcs^  on  repentance, 


he  says,  "  two  errors  of  certain  fanatics  must  be  liere  shortly  vol.  i.  p. 
refuted,  who  have  supposed  that  the  regenerate  cannot  fall  '^^^^^^ 
awaj,  and  although  they  fall  against  their  conscience,  still  I5(jl. 
that  they  are  righteous.     This  madness  is  to  be  condemned, 
and  exaraples  and  sayings  from  the  prophetic  and  apostolic 
writings  must  be  adduced  against  it :  as  for  instance,  Saul 
and  David  pleased  God,  were  righteous^  and  gifted  witli  the 
Holy  Spnit :  yet  they   afterwards   feil ;   the   one^   that   he 
altogether  perished,  the  other,  that  he  afterwards  returned 
to  God."     See  also  his  treatise  'on  the  difference  between 
mortal  and  venial  sin/     Dr.  Hickman  must  have  certainly 
put  aside  all  sense  of  shame  when  he  dared  to  deny  that 
there  was  any  thing  in  this  passage  of  the  Homily  which 
went  against  the  indefectibihty  of  justifying  faith. 

§  11.  But  that  all  may  see  how  consistently  our  Church 
has  held  this  doctrine,  I  will  quote  another  remarkable 
passage  from  the  second  book  of  Homihes,  which  were  set 
forth  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  confirmed  by  her 
authority  in  a  lawful  convocation  of  our  clerg}\  In  the 
Homily  on  the  Resiu-rection,  after  having  explaiued  at  length 
the  benefits  we  enjoy  from  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  the 
writer  thus  addresses  the  people :  "  These  things,  I  say,  well 
considered,  let  us  now,  in  the  rest  of  oui'  life,  declare  our 
faith  that  we  have  in  this  most  fi'uitful  article,  by  framing 
ourselves  thereunto,  in  rising  daily  from  sin,  to  righteousness 
and  holiness  of  life.  '  For  wliat  shall  it  avail  us/  saith  St.  2  Pet.  2. 
Peter,  '  to  be  escaped  and  delivered  from  the  filthiness  of  the  ^^~~'^- 
World,  through  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  and  Sanour 
Jesus  Chi'ist,  if  we  be  entanglcd  again  therewith,  and  be 
overcome  again.  Certainly  it  had  been  better,'  saith  he, 
'  never  to  have  known  the  way  of  righteousness,  than,  after 
it  is  known  and  received,  to  tm'n  back  again  from  the  holy 
commaudment  of  God  givcn  unto  us.'  For  so  shall  the 
proverb  have  place  in  us  where  it  is  said,  '  The  dog  is  re-  Prov.  26. 
turned  to  his  vomit  again,  and  the  sow  that  was  Avashed,  to  ^'• 
her  wallowing  in  the  mire,  again.'  What  a  shame  were  it 
for  us,  being  thus  so  clcarly  and  frccly  washed  from  our  siu, 
to  return  to  the  filthiness  thcreof  again  !     What  a  folly  were 


316  These  warnings  given  to  Christians. 

s  E  c  T.  it.  thus  eudowed  with  righteousness,  to  lose  it  asraiu  !     Wliat 

VII  .  .         .  . 
'- —  madness  were  it  to  lose  tlie  inheritance  we  be  now  set  in,  for 

the  vile  and  transitory  pleasm'e  of  sin !  And  what  an  un- 
kindness  should  it  be,  Avhere  our  Saviour  Christ  of  His 
mercy  is  come  to  us,  to  dwell  within  us  as  our  guest,  to  drive 
Hirn  from  iis,  and  to  banish  Hirn  -sdolently  out  of  our  souls, 
and  instead  of  Hirn,  in  Whom  is  all  grace  and  virtue,  to  re- 
ceive  the  ungracious  spii-it  of  the  de^dl,  tbe  founder  of  all 
naugbtiness  and  mischief !  How  can  we  find  in  our  hearts 
to  sliew  such  extreme  unkindness  to  Christ,  which  hath  now 
so  gently  called  us  to  mercy,  and  oflFered  Himself  unto  us, 
and  He  now  entered  within  us?  Yea,  how  dare  we  be  so 
bold  to  renounce  the  presence  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  (for  where  one  is,  there  is  God,  whole  in 
majesty,  together  with  all  His  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness;) 
and  fear  not,  I  say,  the  danger  and  peril  of  so  traiterous 
defiance  and  departure?  Good  Christian  brethren  and 
sisters,  ad^ise  yourselves,  consider  the  dignity  that  ye  be 
now  set  in ;  let  not  folly  lose  the  thing  that  grace  hath  so 
preciously  offered  and  piu'chased,  let  not  wilfulness  and 
blindness  put  out  so  great  light  that  is  now  shewed  unto 
you/'  What  can  be  more  clear  than  that  the  \\Titer  is  here 
speaking  of  the  total  and  final  apostacy  of  true  behevers? 
And  that  he  conceived  this  apostacy  miglit  take  place,  and  not 
unfrequently  did  so,  is  piain  from  his  beseeching  Christian 
believers  with  extreme  earnestness  to  take  every  care  that 
they  never  fall  into  so  miserable  and  utterly  deplorable  a 
condition.  Why  is  it  that  he  interprets  the  passage  from  St. 
Peter,  as  the  ancients  did,  of  the  apostacy  of  true  believers? 
and  there  the  apostacy  is  plainly  described  as  not  only  pos- 
sible,  l)ut  as  having  really  taken  place  in  some — in  whom 
the  trutli  of  the  old  proverb  had  been  proved :  '  The  dog  to 
his  vomit,^  &c. 

§  12.  I  might  producc  many  other  passages  from  the 
Homilies  bearing  upon  this  point,  but  I  fear  being  wearisome 
to  my  reader.  I  may  refer  bim,  however,  to  the  end  of  the 
Hon),  ii.  Homily  on  the  Nativity.  Tt  would  be  very  casy  also  to 
[p.  3ö5.]  pi-Qye  i\^{^  doctrinc  by  the  consent  of  our  divines  who  lived 
in  the  first  ages  of  the  Reformation,  when  the  Articles  and 
Homihcs  were  set  forth,  and  who  held  the  highest  office  in 


Testimony  of  Hooper.  317 

our  Chm-cli.     But   of  our  private  Doctors,   (as   Dr.    Tully  s  E  c  T. 
says,)  let   iis   take  two  naraes  only,   (but  wliat  names    are  — '- — ^— 


tliey  !)  Hooper  and  Latimer.  Hooper,  Bisliop  of  Gloiicester 
and  Martyr,  in  the  preface  to  his  Exposition  of  the  Deca- 
logue,  says,  "  The  cause  of  reprobation  or  damuation  is  sin 
in  man  who  will  not  hear  and  receive  the  Gospel,  or  who, 
after  he  has  received  it,  falls  into  a  contempt  of  it  by  the 
habit  of  sinning/'  &c.  AVhere  the  holy  prelate  clearly 
teaches  that  there  are  some,  "who,  after  having  received  the 
Gospel,  fall  into  the  habit  of  sin,  and  are  at  length  etemally 
condemned  and  rejected  by  God.  And  that  Hooper  is 
speaking  of  a  true  reception  of  the  Gospel,  and  not  feigned 
as  that  of  hypocrites,  (as  Dr.  Hickman  would  perversely  in-  Hist.  Ar- 
terpret  his  words,)  is  clearly  proved  in  tliis  way.  The  same  "l'q"  P"  „ 
reception  of  the  Gospel  is  meant  in  the  latter  clause  of  the 
sentence,  as  is  nieant  in  the  former,  in  these  words  :  '^  The 
cause  of  damnation  is  sin  in  man  who  will  not  hear  and  re- 
ceive the  Gospel."  And  there  Hooper  is  evidently  speaking 
of  the  reception  of  the  Gospel  by  true  faith.  For  men  are 
not  damned  because  they  do  not  receive  the  Gospel  as  hypo- 
crites, but  because  they  do  not  receive  it  truly  and  heartily. 
Besides,  these  words  of  Hooper,  together  with  those  that 
follow  them,  (as  shall  be  clearly  she\^Ti  in  the  proper  place,) 
are  entirely  taken  from  the  writings  of  jNIelancthon,  and  so 
ought  to  be  explained  according  to  his  meaning.  Now 
Melancthon,  in  his  Loci  Theologici,  on  Predestination,  says,  [vol.  i.  p. 
"It  is  certain  that  this  is  the  cause  of  reprobation,  namely,  '^' -' 
sin  in  men  who  will  not  hear  or  receive  the  Gospel  at  all,  or 
who  renounce  their  faith  before  they  depart  hence."  TMiat 
kind  of  faith  jNIelancthon  means,  is  clear  from  what  he  says 
immediately  afterwards.  "  We  judge  that  they  are  without 
doubt  chosen,  who  apprehend  by  faith  the  mercy  promised 
for  Chiist's  sake,  and  who  do  not  reject  that  confidence  in 
the  end."  It  is  quite  clear  then  (whatever  Dr.  Hickman 
may  chatter  against  it)  that  Hooper  agreed  with  JNIelancthon 
in  holding  that  there  are  some,  who,  in  the  end,  reject  that 
faith  by  Avhich  the  mercy  promised  for  Christas  sake  is  ap- 
prehended,  that  is,  justifying  faith,  and  on  that  account  are 
condemned  and  rejected  etcrnally  by  God.  In  the  seven- 
tf^enth  chapter  of  the  same  work,  Hooper  says,  "  Let  us  not, 


318  Tesiimony  of  Latimer. 

SECT,  therefore,  reject  the  grace  offered  to  us,  nor  drive  it  away 

'■ —  when  received,  through  an  enl  life.     If  we  fall,  let  iis  listen 

to  the  Word  of  Almiglity  God,  Wlio  calls  us  to  repentance ; 
let  US  turn  to  Hirn,  and  continue  no  longer  in  sin,  and  let 
US  not  add  sin  to  sin,  lest  at  length  we  fall  into  contempt  of 
God,  and  of  His  Holy  Word." 

§  13.  Latimer,  Bishop  of  London,  and  a  steadfast  Martyr, 

Part  iii.  p.  in  a  sermon  on  the  third  Sunday  after  Epiphany,  teaches 

^^^'  that  "  it  is  possible  for  us  wlio  have  been  once  written  in 

the  book  of  life,  afterwards  through  forgetfulncss  of  God, 

and  of  His  Word,  and  an  evil  life,  to  be  blotted  out  from  the 

p.  114.       same."     And  on  Romans  iii.  11.  he  says,  "  Those  who  have 

not  yet  come  to  Chi*ist,  or,  who,  after  ha\ing  come,  have  de- 

parted  from  Hirn,  (as  there  are  not  a  few,  who,  having  fallen 

into  sin  against  their  conscience,  in  the  end  lose  the  grace  of 

God,  salvation,  and  the  Holy  Spii'it,)  all  these,  I  say,  who  are 

not  in  favour  with  God,  do  not  grieve  for  their  sins,  but 

kecp  the  purpose  of  sinning  yet  more."     What  ean  be  more 

piain  than  this  ? 

§  14.  It  almost  ashames  and  grieves  one  to  relate  what  is 
said  by  some  against  this  piain  teaching.     The  author  of  the 
work  called  '  Ibis  ad  Csesarem,^  brings  the  following  passage 
Homily     from  the  Homilies  against  the  learned  Montague  :  "  Tliough 
"hcero™  ^^^^  godly  do  fall,  yet  they  walk  not  on  purposely  in  sin,  they 
Scripture;  stand  iiot  still  to  coutiiiue  and  tarry  in  sin,  they  sit  not  down 
335.]"       ^^^^^  careless  men,  without  all  fear  of  God's  just  punishment 
for  sin,  but  defying  sin  thi'ough  God^s  great  grace,  and  infi- 
nite mercy,  they  rise  again  and  fight  against  sin."     Surely 
peoplc  who  sec  such  miserable  loopholes  as  these,  sliew  they 
are  driven  to  great  straits.     For  this  is  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pose :  the  writer  of  the  Homily  is  evidently  speaking  here 
not  of  tliosc  heavicr  sins,  called  mortal,  by  which  the  godly 
depart  from  their  holiness  and  so  from  the  grace  of  God,  but 
of  those  lighter  offences  of  godly  persons,  which  are  called 
sins  of  daily  commission,  and  which  do  not  drive  away  the 
Holy  Spirit,  nor  lay  waste  the  conscience.     He  thus  argues 
from  the  first  Psalm :  "  The  Prophet   Da^dd   dcscribing   a 
Ps.  1.  1.    happy  man,  saith,  'Elessed  is  the  man  that  doth  not  walk 
after  the  counsel  of  the  ungodly,  nor  stand  in  the  way  of 
sinners,  nor  sit  in  the  scat  of  the  scornful.'     There  are  three 


Cafeckism  of  Edward  VI.  319 

sorts  of  people  whose  Company  the  Prophet  woiild  have  him   s  E  c  T. 

flee  and  avoid,  wliich  sliall  be  an  happy  man,  and  partaker  of  __XHi_ 

God's  blessing.    First,  '  he  may  not  walk  after  the  counsel  of 

the  ungodly/     Secondly,  '  he  may  not  stand  in  the  way  of 

sinners/     Thirdly,  '  he  must  not  sit  in  the  seat  of  the  scorn- 

ful.'     By  these  three  sorts  of  people,  ungodly  men,  sinners, 

and  scornful,  all  impiety  is  signified  and  fuUy  expressed.    By 

the  ungodly,  he  understandeth  those  which  have  no  regard 

of  Almighty  God,  being  void  of  all  faith,  "whose  hearts  and 

minds  are  so  set  upon  the  world,  that  they  study  only  how 

to  accomplish  their  worldly  practices,  tlieir  carnal  imagina- 

tions,  their  filthy  lust  and  desire,  without  anj^  fear  of  God. 

The  second  sort  he  calleth  sinners,  not  such  as  do  fall  througli 

ignorance  or  frailness,  for  then  who  should  be  found  free  ? 

What  man  ever  lived  upon  earth,  Christ  only  excepted,  but 

he  hath  sinned  ?     '  The  just  man  falleth  seven  times,  and  Prov.  24. 

riseth  again.^     Though  the  godly  do  fall,  yet  they  walk  not     ' 

on  purposely  in  sin,"  &c.     What  sense  of  shame  can  these 

men  have,  who  do  not  blush  to  bring  forward  such  passages 

as  these  to  support  their  cause  ?  and  yet  of  the  same  kind 

are  all  the  passages  in  our  Homilies,  whicli  are  made  to 

Support  the  indefectibiHty  of  justifying  faith. 

§  15,  Dr.  Hickman  also  brings  forward  a  passage  in  the 
public  Catechism  set  forth  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI., 
where  in  treating  of  the  Catholic  Church,  it  says,  "  Into  this  p.  86.  Lat 
His  State,  as  it  were,  God  hath  enrolled  an  infinite  midti-  jJ^J""*^* 
tude  of  men,  who  submit  to  Christ  as  their  only  King, 
listen  to  and  are  obedient  to  His  word,  who  have  committed 
themselves  to  His  care,  and  whose  patron  He  Himself  has 
undertaken  to  be,  whom  He  for  ever  defends  and  keeps.  To 
this  Commonwealth  there  properly  belong  all  who  truly  fear, 
honour,  and  call  upon  God,  who  give  themselves  up  to  a 
godly  and  holy  life,  and  putting  all  their  confidence  and  hope 
in  God,  most  surely  wait  for  the  blessedness  of  eternal  life. 
And  they  who  are  firm,  steadfast,  and  constant  in  this  faith, 
are  elect  and  chosen,  and,  as  we  say,  predestinated  to  this  so 
great  blessedness  before  the  foundation  of  the  world." 

Upon  these  words  of  the  Catechism  Dr.  Hickman  thus 
triumphs.    "  Here  is  Calvinism  !    As  many  as  fear  God  have  Hist. 
bcen  elected,  chosen,  and  predestinated  to  eternal  life  before  4([,"""*  ^' 


320  Confessions  of  Augsburg  and  Saxony, 

s  E  c  T.  the  foundation  of  the  world  :  tlierefore  if  a  man  fall  from  life 

'■ —  eternal  he  never  feared  God/^     But  here^  as  almost  every 

wliere  eise,  we  miss  good  faith  or  judgment  in  our  liistorian. 
For  wliere,  I  ask,  is  it  said  in  these  words  of  tlie  Catecliism, 
As  many  as  fear  God  have  been  predestinated  to  eternal  life 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world  ?  Rather  the  reA^erse  of 
this  is  sufficiently  clearly  taught,  namely,  that  there  are 
some  who  truly  fear  God,  &c.,  and  yet  are  not  predestinated 
to  eternal  life.  The  Catechism  first  teaches  that  as  many  as 
are  true  believers  properly  belong  to  the  Commonwealth  or 
Clmrch  of  Christ,  as  long  as  they  are  such.  Then  it  takes 
out  from  this  collection  of  true  believers  those  who  are  firm, 
steadfast,  and  constant  in  the  faith  ;  and  affirms  only  of  these 
that  they  have  been  chosen  to  eternal  life  before  the  founda- 
tions  of  the  world  ;  which  who  that  is  a  Catholic  will  deny  ? 
What  would  be  the  use  of  this  distinction,  if  all  who  have 
once  been  true  believers  were  necessarily  firm,  steadfast, 
and  constant  in  the  faith,  and  so  elected?  and  so  we  see 
Dr.  Hickman  has  but  wounded  himself  witli  his  own  weapon. 
And  thus  far  of  the  judgment  of  the  Church  of  England. 

§  16.  Let  US  now  proceed  to  foreign  Churches.  It  is  quite 
clear  that  the  most  ancient  and  greatest  of  the  reformed 
Confessions  agree  with  our  own  Church  on  this  article.  The 
Confession  of  Augsburg,  which,  when  it  was  set  forth,  was 
considered  to  be  the  common  doctrine  of  all  Protestants,  and 
to  which  nearly  all  the  reformed  Churches  gave  testimony, 
and  their  most  celebrated  divines  subscribed,  and  amongst 
them  Calvin  himself,  in  its  sixth  article  thus  speaks  :  "  Thus 
this  obedience  ought  to  resist  evil  desires,  and  be  made  purer 
from  time  to  time  by  spiritual  exercises,  and  we  must  beware 
lest  WC  commit  any  sin  against  our  conscience,  accordiug  to 
that  which  is  written,  'Love  out  of  a  pure  heart,  a  good 
conscience,  and  a  faith  unfeigned  in  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.' 
But  they  who  obey  evil  desires,  and  act  against  their  con- 
science, and  hve  in  deadly  sins,  and  retaiu  not  the  righteous- 
ness  of  faith  and  the  righteousness  of  good  works,  according 
to  St.  Paul,  they  who  do  such  thiugs  shall  not  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God." 

In  the  eleventh  article  it  says,  "  They  condemn  the  Ana- 
baptists  also,  who  say  that  those  once  justified  cannot  lose 


recognise  apostacy  of  believers.  321 

again  the  Holy  Spirit."     Dr.  Hickman,  iiideed,  denies  that  SECT. 

these  passages  ought  to  be  understood  of  the  total  and  final  ^- 

apostacy  of  trne  believers.  But  tliat  unblushing  writer  may 
be  easily  refuted  from  the  writings  of  Melancthon,  who  wrote 
the  Confession^  in  which  he  affirms  again  and  again  niost 
clearly,  the  possibility  and  not  unfrequent  occurrence  of  true 
believers  and  righteous  men  losing  in  the  end  their  faith  and 
righteousness.  The  reader  may  refer  to  his  Loci  Communes, 
on  Repentance  and  the  Difference  between  ]\Ioii:al  and 
Venial  Sin,  But  that  the  subject  may  be  put  beyond  the 
reach  of  controversy  let  us  tum  to  the  Saxon  Confession. 

§  17.  This  Confession  was  "written  by  !Melancthon  (as  he 
himself  affirms  in  the  preface  to  his  Body  of  Dinnity)  at  the 
Synod  of  Wittemberg  in  the  year  1551,  where  the  clergy- 
men  and  doctors  of  the  Churches  and  Universities  of  Saxony 
and  jNIeissen  had  assembled,  all  of  wliom  subscribed  to  it  as 
to  a  repetition  and  explanation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
to  be  proposed  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  the  name  of  all 
Protestants'.  It  was  approved  of  by  the  heads  of  the 
houses  of  Brandenburg  and  Mansfeld,  by  the  clergy  of 
Strasburg,  and  by  the  pastors  and  doctors  of  the  Pome- 
ranian  Churches,  in  written  documents  annexed  at  the  end 
of  the  Confession.  It  met  vrith  the  approval  also  of  other 
Churches,  and  was  commended  by  those  of  Poland  in  their 
consent  or  reconciliation.  Now  in  the  nintli  article  of  this 
Confession,  on  Rewards,  we  read  as  follows  :  " '  Whoever  ai'e 
led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  are  the  sons  of  God,  and  if  sons, 
then  heirs  of  God,^  &c. ;  and  yet  it  is  at  the  same  time  true, 
that  those  who  cast  away  the  Holy  Spirit,  either  by  falling 
away  from  the  faith,  or  acting  against  their  conscience,  and  who 
do  not  return  to  God  by  repentance,  are  not  heirs ;  as  it  is 
written  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  'they  who  do  such 
things  shall  not  possess  the  kingdom  of  God.' "  The  same 
thing  is  expressed  more  clearly  in  the  following  article  on 
the  DiflFerence  of  Sins,  in  these  words  :  "  When  it  is  said  that 
sins  remain  in  the  regenerate,  it  is  necessary  to  make  a  differ- 
ence.    For,  from  what  is  written  in  St.  Luke  xi.  26,  'Then 

'  "The  Saxon  Confession  was  ccr-      of  Trent."     Admon.  de  üb.  Concord. 
tainly  written  in  the  name  of  all  the      p.  189. 
Churches,  to  be  offered  to  the  Council 

BULL.  Y 


322  Distinction  of  sins  io  be  maintained. 

s  E  c  T.   goeth  he  and  taketh  to  him  seven  other  spirits  more  wicked 


vir. 


tlian  himself,  and  they  enter  in  and  dwell  there/  and  from 
other  passageSj  it  is  evident  that  some  regenerate  persons  do 
grieve  and  drive  out  the  Holy  Sph-it,  and  are  rejected  by  God 
and  become  subject  to  His  wrath  and  everlasting  punishment ; 
and  in  Ezekiel  xxxiii.  18^  'when  the  righteons  turneth  from 
hisrighteousness^  and  committethiniquity,he  shall  diethereby/ 
It  is  neeessaiy  therefore  that  the  difference  be  maintained 
between  sins  which  remain  in  holy  men  dm'ing  this  mortal 
life,  and  which  do  not  drive  out  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  those, 
on  account  of  which  a  man  becomes  again  subject  to  the 
wi'ath  of  God^  and  everlasting  pimishment/^  &c.  The  whole 
article  is  well  worth  reading.  Now  surely  he  must  be  most 
barefaced  who  shall  deny  that  the  doctrine  we  are  contend- 
ing  for  is  taught  in  these  passages,  for  it  is  piain  they  speak 
not  only  of  the  possibility,  but  of  the  act  or  event,  and  affirm 
that  there  are  really  some  regenerate  persons  who  grieve 
and  drive  out  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  are  again  rejected  by 
God,  and  become  subject  to  His  wrath  and  everlasting 
punishment.  And  that  no  one  should  doubt  whether  this 
is  meant  of  the  final  apostacy  of  the  regenerate,  the  au- 
thors  of  the  Confession  prove  their  opinion  by  two  remark- 
able  passages  of  Holy  Writ,  namely,  St.  Luke  xi.  26,  and 
Ezekiel  xxxiii.  18  :  the  former  expressly  speaks  ofthose  '  whose 
last  condition  is  worse  than  the  first,'  the  latter  no  less 
plainly  '  of  the  righteous  man  turning  from  his  righteousness 
and  dying  in  his  iniquity.'  See  also  the  fifteenth  article, 
towards  the  end. 

§  18.  The  Bohemian  or  Waldensian  Confession  plainly 
upholds  the  same  doctrine.  This  Confession  was  made  from 
very  much  more  ancient  Confessions,  and  was  approved  of  by 
Luther,  Melancthon,  and  the  University  of  Wittemberg,  and 
was  at  length  submitted  to  King  Ferdinand,  by  the  barons 
and  nobility  of  Bohemia  in  the  year  1535.  Now  in  the  fiftli 
article  there  is  the  following  statement :  "  They  also  teach 
the  absolved,  that  is,  those  who  have  had  their  sins  remitted 
by  Christ,  to  be  gratcful  for  the  grace  of  God  received  in 
Christ,  lest  they  receivc  that  grace  in  vain,  and  fall  again 
[.loh.  5.     into  sin,  as  it  is  written,  *  Go  and  sin  no  more,  lest  a  worse 

14  1 

[Heb  10   thing  come  unto  thee:'  and  again,  '^If  we  sin  wilfully  after 

26.]   ■ 


Bohemian  or  Waldensian  Confession.  323 

tliat  "n-e  have  received  the  knowledge  of  the  tnith,  there  sect. 
remaineth  no  more  sacrifice  for  sins/  "  &c.  In  the  tn-entietli  - — —^— 
and  last  article,  wliich  is  inscribed,  "  Of  the  time  of  gi'ace,  in 
which  the  favour  of  God  should  be  sought  and  may  be 
found,"  the  extreme  madness  is  reprehended  of  those  in 
general,  who  defer  repentance  to  the  last  stage  of  their  life, 
and  especially  those  "who  after  having  received  the  grace 
of  justification,  fall  into  the  greater  sins  and  delay  to  return 
and  be  turned  to  the  Lord.  The  "words  are  as  follovrs : 
"  But  chief  of  all,  whoso  having  received  the  proof  of  Divine 
favour  towards  him,  shall  of  his  OAvn  accord,  and  willingly 
indulge  in  sins,  and  despise  and  neglect  so  many  salutary 
Tvai'nings  calling  him  to  repentance;  Tvhoso  wantonly  and 
foolishly  abusing  the  mercy  of  God,  and  staying  himseK 
on  it,  shall  become  hardened  in  his  sins  even  to  the  veiy 
approach  of  death,  and  then  roused  for  the  first  time  by  the 
fear  and  horror  of  instant  and  everlasting  death,  begius 
perchance  too  late,  to  grow  wise,  such  an  one  is  in  danger, 
lest  to  his  extreme  cost  he  meet  väth.  the  ^vrath,  and  not  the 
mercy  of  God,  as  His  own  words  testify.  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  by  ^licah  :  '  Then  shall  they  cry  unto  the  Lord,  but  He  eh.  i.  4. 
"svill  not  hear  them :  He  "«ill  even  hide  His  face  from  them 
at  that  time,  as  they  have  behaved  themselves  ill  in  their 
doings ;  for  they  would  not  hear  ]My  voice  when  I  stretched 
forth  ^ly  hands  unto  them  all  the  day  long/  Tmly  it  is  to 
be  feared,  lest  he  reap  the  due  rewards  of  his  deeds,  for 
having  so  slothfully  and  Avastefully  abused  the  time  Tvhich 
God  had  granted  unto  him  for  repentance.  Nevertheless, 
let  no  one  despair.  For  even  if  in  the  last  moment  of  death 
he  shall  shew  signs  of  tnie  repentance,  which,  however,  rarely 
happens  to  such  men,  (for  with  truth  doth  St.  Paul  say  '  and 
this  we  will  do  if  God  permit,)  he  must  not  be  refused  the 
comfort  of  absolution.'^  By  which  we  are  plainly  taught, 
1.  that  there  are  persons  who,  after  having  received  the 
proof  of  the  Di^-ine  favour  towards  them,  (that  is,  as  is  said 
above,  after  they  have  been  absolved  and  have  received  re- 
mission  of  sins  through  Christ,)  willingly  plunge  into  sin  and 
neglect  the  salutary  warning  calling  them  to  rcpent  in  time, 
and  continue  hardened  in  sin  even  to  the  very  approach  of 
death.     And  2ndly,  that  the  repentance  and  salvation    of 

Y  2 


324  All  antiquity  opposed  to  the 

S  E  G  T.  such   is    so   far  from   beiiig    certain    and  infallible,  that  it 

'- —  is  very  doubtful  and  füll  of  dauger :  for  it  is  of  tbe  lapsed 

that  the  Waldensians  understand  tliese  tremendous  words  of 
the  Lord  by  His  prophet :  ''  They  shall  call  unto  Me,  and  I 
will  not  hear/'  &c.  And  they  moreover  expressly  say,  that  it 
very  rarely  happens  that  such  persons  give  signs  of  true  re- 
pentance,  applying  to  such  what  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to 

eh.  6.  3.  the  Hebrews  says  concerning  those  who  have  apostatized  from 
the  faith  of  Christ. 

§  19.  But  it  is  now  time  for  us  reverently  to  listen  to  the 
voice  of  the  ancient  Chm'ch  upon  this  subject,  and  to  enquire 
what  the  age  of  old  held  concerning  it,  as  Dr.  Tully  hiniself 

Justif.  advises.  I  have  said  that  this  supposition  that  the  salvation 
^"  'P'  ■  of  all  those  who  have  been  once  endued  with  justifying  faith 
is  certain,  was  opposed  to  the  judgment  of  all  Catholic 
antiquity.  If  Dr.  Tully  will  not  believe  me  whom  he  con- 
siders  a  mere  novice  in  the  writings  of  the  Eathers,  he  will 
at  least  trust  two  witnesses  who  without  doubt  are  most  con- 
versant  in  the  works  of  antiquity,  and  moreover  are  most 

Hb.  vi.  upright  men.  The  great  Gerard  Vossius,  in  his  History  of 
Pelagianism,  in  explaining  his  eleventh  thesis,  proves  by 
most  clear  testimony  that  St.  Augustine  himself  constantly 
acknowledges  that  justifying  faith  and  regenerating  grace 
might  be  lost  and  is  lost  by  many,  notwithstanding  his  own 
addition  to  the  common  opinion  of  the  early  Fathers  on 
Perseverance,  namely,  that  that  was  not  only  the  gift  of  God, 
but  that  it  flowed  necessarily  from  the  absolute  decree  of 
salvation.  In  his  twelfth  thesis  he  boldly  affirms  that  "all 
antiquity  is  opposed  to  indefectibiHty  /'  and  in  confirmatiou 
and  explanation  of  this  thesis,  he,  at  other  times  a  most 
unassuming  writer,  compelled  by  the  audacity  of  some  who 
blushed  not  to  join  the  authority  of  the  ancients  to  their 

[vol.  vi.     novel  and  contrary  opinion,  thus  expresses  himself:  "That 

^"  '  '^  what  we  have  said  is  the  common  opinion  of  antiquity,  such 
moderns  alone  can  deuy,  who  in  other  matters  perhaps  are 
not  uneducated,  but  yet  are  plainly  strangers  to  antiquity, 
or  who  have  their  minds  so  enslaved  to  one  or  two  men's 
opinions,  as  to  choose  rather  seeing  with  their  eyes  than 
with  their  own,  and  prefer  erring  with  them  to  thinking 
rightly  with  others/' 


doctrine  of  indefectibility .  325 

This  great   man   clearly  sliews  also   how  clumsily  many  s  E  c  T. 

passages  of  the  Fathers  are  brought  forward  by  some  wbo ^^^' 

have  misused  them  for  supporting  this  doctrine  of  indefecti- 
bility, and  proposes  certain  clear  rules  and  distinctions  by 
which  apparent  contradictions  in  ancient  MTiters  on  this 
subject  may  be  easily  removed.  Our  next  Avitness  is  the 
right  reverend  and  very  learned  prelate,  and  noble  ornament 
of  our  Church  John  Overall,  who  in  his  judgment  on  the 
five  points,  thus  speaks  concerning  this  question.  "  That  [Lambeth 
opinion  which  is  the  cause  of  so  much  dispute,  namely,  '  of  j^^^'^  ®*' 
the  certain  perseverance  of  all  those  who  have  once  believed,  1651.] 
and  have  been  regenerate/  was  never  approved  of  by  any  of 
the  fathers  of  the  ancient  Church,  but  has  been  rejected  by 
all  antiquity,  and  but  too  well  refuted  by  the  experience  of 
all  ages"^,  and  never  arose  tili  these  later  times,^^  &c.  After 
these  witnesses,  who  are  universally  considered  worthy  of 
credit,  the  great  Grotius,  perhaps,  may  obtain  a  fair  hearing 
even  from  his  enemies.  It  is  worth  while  attending  to  what 
he  says  in  the  Animadversions  on  his  notes  to  Cassander,  (title 
On  the  Difference  of  Sins.)  "  A  more  pernicious  doctrine,"  [Op.  vol. 
he  says,  "  could  not  have  been  introduced  into  Christianity  "^*  ^' 
than  this, — namely,  that  a  man  who  has  believed  or  been  re- 
generate,  (for  these  terms  with  many  are  equivalent,)  might 
fall  into  wickedness  and  crimes,  but  that  it  was  impossible 
for  him,  on  that  account,  to  fall  from  the  favour  of  God,  or 
incur  his  condemnation.  None  of  the  ancients  taught  this, 
none  would  have  endured  it  to  be  taught,  nor  have  I  ever 
seen  plainer  proofs  of  Scripture  being  Avrested  to  private  and 
bad  interpretations  than  in  this  matter."  Nor  has  Riveta, 
the  celebrated  Opponent  of  Grotius,  either  in  his  examina- 
tion  or  elsewhere,  adduced  any  proof  from  any  ancient  Ca- 
tholic  writer,  of  the  certain  and  infallible  perseverance  of  all 
the  regenerate,  which,  when  examined  on  the  rules  and  ob- 
servations  of  Vossius  which  I  have  just  mentioned,  is  not 
clearly  altogether  foreign  to  his  purpose.  Let  the  reader 
compare  them  and  judge  for  himself. 

■"  "  It  is  proved  alas  by  many  ex-  wicked    life   in    aversion  from    Him." 

amples,  that  some  of  those  who  have  Prosper.  Respons.  ad  cap.  Gallor.  llesp. 

been  regenerated  in  Christ  Jesus,  re-  ad  Object.  7.  [Append.  ad  voh  x.  Au- 

nouncing  their  faith  and  holy  conduct  gustini  üp.  p.  199.] 
apostatizc    from    God,    and    end    their 


326 


Valentinians  originated  this  dogma. 


SECT. 
VII. 


lib.  i.  eh.  1 , 
p.  2t).  edit, 
Feuard. 
[1.  (5.  2. 
p.  29.] 


p.  2S.  [p. 
31.] 


av^xr/la 


[iv.  37.  •; 

p.  281.] 


Advers. 
Jovinian. 
lib.ii.[§l 
vol.  ii.  p. 
321.] 


§  20.  TVitli  some  meaning,  however,  did  Overall  say  that 

this  opinion  of  the  indefectibility  of  justifying  faith  "had 
been  rejected  bv  all  antiquity :"  and  Grotius,  tliat  "  none 
of  the  aucients  Avoidd  have  eudured  the  teacher  of  it.'^  For 
there  were  formerly  some  who  dared  to  put  forth  this  dogma, 
but  thev  ■\Tere  continiially  rejected  by  the  Catholic  Fathers 
of  the  Church,  and  were  considered  unorthodox,  if  not  here- 
tical.  The  first  promoters  of  this  opinion  (as  far  as  I  can 
remember)  were  the  Yalentinians,  of  whom  Ireuccus  gives 
the  foUowing  account.  "  For  as  that  which  is  earthly  caunot 
partake  of  salvation,  (for  they  say  it  is  not  capable  of  it,)  so, 
on  the  contrary,  that  Tvliich  is  spiritual,  which  they  say 
themselves  ai*e,  cannot  admit  corruption  in  -whatever  actions 
they  may  be  involved.  For  in  the  same  way  as  gold  thrown 
into  the  mire  loseth  not  its  beauty,  but  retaineth  its  own 
nature,  the  mire  hanug  no  po-^ver  to  hurt  the  gold,  so  they 
say  that  themselves,  though  engaged  in  any  kind  of  material 
actions,  cannot  be  injured  or  lose  any  of  theii*  spiritual  sub- 
stance."  And  again,  "they  exalt  and  call  themselves  per- 
fect,  and  the  seeds  of  election.  We,  they  say,  have  received 
grace  only  as  a  loan,  and  therefore  it  will  be  taken  from  us, 
but  that  themselves  profess  it  as  their  own,  having  come 
down  to  them  from  heaven  from  the  ineffable  and  mysterious 
syzygy,  and  therefore,  that  it  vrill  iucrease  in  them."  Nothing 
certainly  can  be  more  similar  to  this  doctrine  of  the  Valen- 
tinians (if  you  only  take  away  the  "  syzygy^'),  than  the  opi- 
nion of  certain  diWnes,  whose  names  I  forbear  mentioning. 
What  was  the  opinion  of  Ii-enteus,  and  Catholics  of  that  age, 
and  how  opposed  it  was  to  the  madness  of  the  Gnostics,  is 
clear  from  a  passage  in  his  fonrth  book,  chapter  the  seventy- 
second.  "  Since,^^  he  says,  "  all  are  of  the  same  natiire,  and 
ai'e  able  to  retain  and  exercise  what  is  good,  and  to  lose  it 
and  not  do  good :  with  men,  (and  hoAv  much  more  with 
God,)  some  are  justly  praised  and  receive  the  just  testimony 
of  good  choice  and  perseverance :  while  others  are  accused, 
and  receive  the  punishment  they  deserved,  because  they 
have  rejected  what  is  just  and  good. 

§  21.  St.  Jerome  places  this  as  second  among  the  errone- 
ous  dograas  of  Jovinian,  viz,,  that  "  those  who  had  been  bap- 
tized  cannot  be  temptcd  by  the  denl;   (so  as  to  fall  under 


Rise  of  Predestinarian  heresy.  327 

the  temptation ;)    and  that  if  any  were  tempted,  it  was  a  s  e  c  T. 
proof  that  they  liad  been  baptized  with  water  only,  and  not  — HI: — 
with  tlie  Spirit."     Jovinian,  tlierefore,  supposed  that  no  oue 
truly  regenerate  was  ever  conquered  and  overcome  by  the 
dei"!!,  so  as  to  be  able  to  be  brought  again  into  his  dominion. 
In  refuting  his  error,  St.  Jerome,  besides  others,  brings  for- 
ward  the  passage  from  the  Hebrews,  and  thus  argues  from  eh.  6.4—6. 
it :  "  We  cannot  deny  that  those  havebeen  baptized  (i.e.  with 
the  Spirit),  who  have  been  enlightened  and  have  tasted  of  the 
heavenly  gift  and  were  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Bnt  if  the  baptized  cannot  sin,  how  does  the  Apostle  say, 
'If  they  shall  fall  away?^"     Towards  the  end  of  the  fourth 
Century  the  Predestinarian  heresy  arose,  the  leader  of  which 
was  one  Lucidus,  a  Priest :  to  whom  Faustus,  Avhile  he  still 
clearly  professed  to   be  a  Catholic,  w^rote  an  epistle  which 
the  Syuod  of  Arles  approved  of.     In  it  are  certain  anathemas,  [Vid. 
the  third  of  which  is  as  follows.     "  Cursed  be  he  that  saveth  ^^°""- 

nienta  ra- 
that he  who  has  perished  received  not  grace,  so  as  that  he  tmm  Or- 

could  be  saved."  Whence  it  is  quite  clear  that  Lucidus,  ^l^^^' 
who  falls  under  this  anathema,  said  that  none  of  those  Avho  I5ö9.  part 
perish  had  ever  received  any  thing  from  Christ  by  which  he 
might  be  saved ;  that  he  had  not  even  been  gifted  with  justi- 
fying  grace,  or  ever  been  made  truly  regenerate  in  Christ. 
And  this  is  still  clearer  from  the  explanation  of  the  Catholic 
opinion,  as  opposed  to  this  error  of  the  Predestinarians 
which  occurs  in  the  same  epistle,  in  these  words :  ''  But  we, 
by  the  illumination  of  Christ,  truly  and  confidently  affirm, 
that  he  who  has  perished  through  sin,  could  have  been  saved 
through  grace  if  he  had  not  deuied  active  obedience  to  grace 
ever  waitiug  on  him ;  and  that  he  who  through  grace  attains 
by  humble  obedience  to  the  goal  of  a  happy  consummation, 
might  have  fallen  through  sloth,  and  perished  through  sin." 
Shortly  afterwards,  as  it  appears  from  Faustus's  preface,  the 
Synod  of  Lyons  subscribed  to  the  anathemas  of  that  of 
Arles. 

§  22.  At  Icngth  in  the  ninth  Century  the  wretched  monk 
Gothescalcus  revivcd  the  condcmned  heresy  of  the  Predesti- 
narians.    Hincmar,  in  a  letter  to  Pope  Nicolas,  has  given  us  Apud  Flo- 
his  dogmas,  amongst  which  is  the  following :    "  Those  who  iii,^i4""^' 
perish  were  never  truly,  but  onJy  sacramentally  redcemed." 


328  Revived  by  Gothescalcus,  condemned 

s  E  c  T.  This  is  explained  more  clearly  in  a  letter  from  Amolo,  Arch- 

^ —  bishop  of  Lyons,  to  Gotliescalcus,  -wliich  lias  now  at  leugth 

been  publisbed  by  the  learned  I.  Sirmondi.  In  tbis  letter, 
[Vide  Amolo  relates  tbat  be  bad  seeu  tbe  ^yritiugs  of  Gotbescalcus, 
Sirmondi  Diviue   Prcdestination :    and  be    selects  from  tbem    six 

Op.  Paris. 

1696.  vol.  beads  of  doctrine  to  be  severally  refuted,  tbe  tbü'd  of  wbicb 

ii.p.    o  .j  ^^^  ff  Tbey  who  perisb  out  of  tbe  number  of  tbe  faitbful  were 

never   incorporated   into    Cbrist   or    His  Cburcb,   or   made 

members  of  tbe  lost  and  saved  sbeep,  and  so  were  never 

Cbristians,  even  at  tbe  time  wben  eitber  in  tbeir  infancy  tbey 

were  brougbt  to  partake  in  tbe  mysteries  of  regeneration 

and  tbe  Holy  Sacrifice,  or  in  maturer  years  tbey  tbemselves 

Vide  Flo-  approaclied  tbereunto/^     Gotbescalcus,  witb  bis  new  dogmas, 

doard.  ubi  ^^^  coudemned  by  all  tbe  Bisbops  of  Germany  in  848,  at  tbe 

supra.  *'  ^  j  ' 

Synod  of  Mayence,  at  wbicb  Rabanus  ISIaurus,  tbe  great 

Ornament  of  tbat  age,  presided,  and  tbe  famous  Haymo  was 

tom.  iii.     present.     Tbe  Cburcb  of  Rbeims  over  wbicb  Hiucmar  pre- 

Ga^'^p  66  sided,    and   a  Council  of  otber   Bisbops  of  Belgian  Gaul, 

commonly  called  tbe  Council  of  Cresci,  sbortly  afterwards 

agreed  to  tbe  decrees  of  tbis  Synod.     So  manifest  was  tbe 

agreement  upon  tbis  article  of  Catbolic  tradition,  and  so  great 

was  tbe  reverence  for  it  at  tbat  time  amongst  parties  Avbo 

Vide  tom.  dififcred  in  otber  points,  tbat  even  tbe  Cburcb  of  Lyons,  in 

Bib.  Pa^tr!^  most  tbings  but  too  Avell  inclined  towards  Gotbescalcus,  did 

col.  1204.  not  dare  to  defend  tbe  teacber  of  novelties  in  tbis  particular, 

but  approved  of  tbe  decision  of  botb  Synods.     Tbe  Synod 

[Anno855.  also  of  Yalcuce,  wbicb  was  beld  by  fourteen  Bisbops  from 

Ga'l.'^töm    ^^  provinces  of  Lyons,  Yienne  and  Arles,  condemned  in  tbe 

iii.  p.  98.]  same  terms  as  tbe  above-mentioned  Synods,  tbis  doctrine  of 

Gotbescalcus,  on  tbe  certain  salvation  of  all  regenerate  per- 

sous :    altbougb  from  some  unwortby  jcalousy,  as  a  learned 

man  has  remarked,  all  kinds  of  attempts  were  made  to  sbake 

and  annul  tbe  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Cresci,  and  even  of 

Mayence,  tbe  leader  of  Avbicli  attempts  was  one  Ebbo  of 

Grenoble,  wbo  was  secretly  an  enemy  of  Hincmar,  tbe  clüef 

Promoter  of  tbe  act  of  Cresci,  because,  wben  bis  uncle  Ebbo, 

Bisbop  of  Rbeims,  was  degraded,  Hincmar  was  appointed 

bis  successor.     Now  in  tbe  fiftli  canon  of  tbis  Council  it  is 

tbus  decrced :  "  We  believe  also  tbat  it  must  be  most  firmly 

bcld,  tbat  tbe  wbole  multitude  of  tbe  faitbful  regenerated  by 


in  Councils  qf  Mayence,  Cresci,  ^c.  329 

water  and  the  Holy  Ghost^  and  by  this  truly  incorporated  s  E  c  T. 

into  the  Church,  and  according  to  tlie  apostolic   doctrine, '- — 

baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ^  are  washed  in  His  blood 
from  their  sins :  for  true  regeneration  could  not  take  place 
in  them  unless  there  were  true  redemption  also^  since  in  the 
saeraments  of  the  Chmxh  nothing  is  vain,  nothing  delusive, 
but  every  thing  is  wholly  true,  and  depending  on  His  truth 
and  steadfastness.  Yet  of  this  body  of  the  faithful  and 
redeemed,  some  are  everlastingly  saved  because  by  the  gi'ace 
of  God  they  continue  faithfuUy  in  their  state  of  redemption, 
keeping  in  mind  the  word  of  their  Lord  Himself :  'He  that 
endureth  to  the  end  the  same  shall  be  saved : '  and  some 
because  they  ^vill  not  continue  in  the  salvation  of  faith  which 
they  received  at  the  beginnin g,  but  chose  to  make  the  grace 
of  redemption  of  none  effect  by  their  evil  doctrine  rather  than 
preserve  it,  by  no  means  attain  unto  the  fulness  of  salvation 
and  participation  of  eternal  blessedness."  Thus  we  see  the 
opinion  of  Gothescalcus  on  this  head  was  rejected  -svith  an 
extraordinary  degree  of  consent  on  both  sides.  And  the 
Church  of  Christ  continued  unaniraous  on  this ,  point  tili  the 
sixteenth  Century,  when  every  one  knows  by  whom  the  error 
of  Gothescalcus  was  again  upheld.  And  indeed,  I  hardly 
think  that  any  other  point  of  Christian  doctrine  could  be 
found,  M'hich  has  come  down  to  us  with  a  greater  consent  of 
Catholic  doctors,  or  with  a  more  unbroken  tradition  than  this 
on  the  defectibility  of  justifying  faith. 

§  23.  But  finally  to  clench  the  point.  Even  supposing  we 
were  to  grant  that  the  Church  of  England  is  entirely  silent 
on  this  point,  and  has  given  no  express  or  definite  opinion  for 
either  side,  (which  we  have  shewn  above  to  be  utterly  false,) 
still  all  true  sons  of  our  Church  would  be  bound  totally  to 
reject  and  condemn  their  opinion  who  uphold  the  certain 
and  infallible  salvation  of  all  who  have  been  once  regenerate. 
They  would  be  bound  to  do  this,  I  say,  by  the  canon  which 
was  decreed  in  the  Synod  held  in  London  1571,  Avhich  we 
have  mentioned  in  this  Apology  and  elsewhere.  In  this  canon 
it  is  expressly  commanded,  "that  they  prcach  nothing  to  be 
religiously  held  and  beüeved  by  the  people,  except  that  which 
is  agreeable  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
and  which  the  Catholic  Fathers  and  ancient  Bishops  have  col- 


330  Universalihj  of  redemption. 

s  E  c  T.  lected  from  tliat  very  doctrine."     How  tlien  can  they  evade 
— - — '■ —  tliis  canon  wlio  not  only  preacli  tlie  doctrine  of  indefectibility 


to  be  religiously  lield  by  all^  (whicli  doctrine  tlie  Catliolic 
Fatbers  and  ancient  Bisbops  are  so  far  from  collecting  from 
tbe  Scriptures,  tbat  witb  one  voice  tbey  bave  openly  rejected 
and  condemned  it  as  plainly  contrary  to  Scripture,  and 
witbal  extremely  dangerous,)  but  in  order  tbat  tbe  poison 
may  more  widely  spread  araongst  tbe  people,  carefully  incul- 
cate  it  in  tbeir  Systems,  Enebiridions  and  Catecbisms  for  can- 
didates  for  tbe  ministry,  to  be  taugbt  by  tbem  to  otbers? 
Who  is  not  indignant  at  tbe  iniqnity  of  tbose  men  wbo 
"^bilst  tbey  tbemselves  fiercely  upbold  tbe  novelties  of  some 
innovator  of  yesterday,  botb  in  tbis  and  otber  points  of  doc- 
trine, in  Opposition  to  tbe  wbole  stream  of  ancient  doctors, 
are  before  tbe  uulearned  fui'iously  attacking  tbeir  opponents, 
wlio  sbrink  most  rebgiously  from  departing  even  a  bair's 
breadtb  from  tbe  judgment  of  antiquity,  and  brand  tbem 
witb  tbe  names  of  innovators  and  deserters  of  tbe  doctrine  of 
tbe  Cbm'cb  ?     But  let  us  proceed  to  otber  matters. 

§  24.  Fourthly,  and  lastly,  Dr.  TuUy  teacbes  tbat  "  Christ 
Las  made  satisfaction  and  offered  Himself  upon  tbe  cross 

eh.  7.  solely  for  tbe  sins  of  tbe  elect.^^  For  in  bis  Encbiridion, 
■when  treating  on  tbe  Satisfaction  of  Cbrist,  he  tbus  interro- 
gates  tbe  catecbumen.  ''  A.  Has  Cbrist  tben  truly  made 
satisfaction  for  tbe  sins  of  tbe  faitbful  ? "  B.  "  Yes,  entirely." 
But  wby  tbis  restriction  'for  tbe  sins  of  tbe  faitbful  t'     Why 

[c.2.p.46.]  not  '  for  tbe  sins  of  all  mankind?^  For  as  Overall  excellently 
explains  tbis,  "  Scripture  simply  teils  us  tbat  God  gave  His 
Sou  for  tlie  world,  and  it  places  tbe  condition  not  in  tbe 
deatb  of  Cbrist,  but  in  tbe  faitb  of  man,  and  in  his  salvation 
to  follow  conditionally  from  faitb.  Tbe  Son  is  so  given,  tbat 
if  men  bclieve  in  Ilim,  tbey  may  be  saved.  But  "wbetber 
they  believe  or  not,  God  has  given  His  Son  for  tbem,  and  in 
Hirn  batli  proposed  salvation  under  tbe  condition  of  faitb. 
But  tbat  men  may  perform  tbis  condition,  God  botb  exborts 
tbem  in  Ilis  word,  and  in  deed  excites  and  helps  tbem  by 
tbe  grace  of  tbe  Holy  Spirit,  so  tbat  tbe  fault  is  witb  men 
and  not  witb  God  if  tlicy  do  not  believe.^'  But  who,  accord- 
iug  to  tbe  Doctor,  are  tbesc  faitbful  persons,  for  whom  alone 
Christ  has  truly  made  satisfaction?  only  tbe  elect,  who,  as 


Christ  died  not  for  the  elect  ahne.  331 

has  just  been  shewn  the  Doctor  expressly  lays  down^  possess  s  E  c  t. 

justifying  faith.     But  liow  greatly  does  this  restriction  and : 

lirnitation  of  tlie  satisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  elect 
alone,  strike  at  the  very  fouudations  of  the  Gospel :  and 
how  entirely  this  opinion  was  rejected  and  anathematized  by 
the  ancient  CathoHc  Church,  may  be  clearly  seeu  from  what 
has  been  already  said  in  the  answer  to  the  eleventh  Stricture.  §  8.  p.  78. 
That  the  more  ancient  Confessions  of  the  foreign  reformed 
Chiu'ches,  as  that  of  Augsburg,  Saxony,  &c.,  oj)enly  and 
constantly  sujoport  and  defend  the  universahty  of  grace  and 
redemption  tlu'ough  Christ,  must  be  seen  at  once,  by  any 
one  who  has  even  looked  at  these  Confessions.  It  remains 
then  for  us  to  see  what  is  the  opinion  of  the  Enghsh  Church. 
That  Christ  has  not  only  truly  redeemed  the  elect  but  even 
those  who  perish,  foUows  most  clearly  from  the  position  which 
■we  have  just  explained :  namely,  that  sonie  of  those  who 
perish,  were  gifted  through  and  for  the  sake  of  Christ  with 
true  regenerating  and  justifying  grace,  and  were  actually 
placed  in  a  state  of  salvation :  from  whence  they  feil  through 
their  own  fault.  But  we  need  not  here  have  recoiu'se  to 
inferences. 

§  25.  Let  US  again  listen  to  the  learned  Bishop  Overall: 
"  Concerning  the  death  of  Christ,"  he  says,  "  so  piain  and  [c.2.p.45.] 
consistent  is  the  opinion  of  our  Church,  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  died  for  all  men  whatsoever,  or  for  all  the  sius  of  all 
men,  that  it  is  wonderful  how  any  amongst  us  have  dared  to 
controvert  this  point.  In  the  seventh  article,  '  Both  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  everlasting  life  is  oflfered  to  man- 
kind  by  Christ,  AYho  is  the  only  Mediator  between  God  and 
man,  being  both  God  and  man.'  In  the  fifteenth,  ^Christ 
came  to  be  the  Lamb  without  spot,  T\Tio  by  sacrifice  of 
Himself  once  made,  should  take  away  the  sins  of  the  world.' 
In  the  thirty-first,  '  The  offering  of  Christ  once  made,  is  that 
perfect  redemption,  propitiation,  and  satisfaction  for  all  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world,  both  original  and  actual.'  The 
same  is  taught  in  the  common  Catechism  as  the  plainest 
meaning  of  the  second  article  of  the  Crced,  in  which  every 
one  is  to  believe  in  God  the  Son,  '  "V\Tio  redeemed  liim  and 
all  maukind.'  So  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  '  Who  for  us  men, 
and  for  our  salvation,  came  down  from  heaven,'  &c.     And  in 


332  Homily  on  the  Passion. 

s  E  c  T.  many  places  in  our  Liturffv.  as  in  the  consecration  of  the 

VII 

: —  Eucharist,  '  God^  Who   didst  give   Thine   only  Son   Jesus 


Christ  to  suffer  death  upon  the  Gross  for  our  redemption, 
"WTio  made  there  by  His  one  oblation,  &c.  a  füll,  perfect,  and 
sufficient  sacrificej  oblation,  and  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of 
the  whole  world/  And  the  Communion  is  given  to  each,  in 
these  words  :  '  The  body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  was 
given  for  thee.     The  blood  which  was  shed  for  thee,'"  &e. 

§  26.  Many  passages  in  the  Homilies  agree  with  the 
Articles  in  this  point.  But  not  to  be  tedious,  it  will  suffice 
to  quote  one  or  two  from  the  Homily  of  the  Death  and 
Passion  of  our  Sa^dour  Christ,  where,  if  any  where,  it  is  fair 
to  suppose  that  our  Church  has  declared  her  opinion  in  the 
matter.  In  the  beginning  of  the  second  part  the  great 
Hom.  ii.  mercy  of  our  Sanour  Christ  is  set  forth,  "  Who  suffered 
'-^'  ■-'  death  universally  for  all  men.'^  And  afterwards  in  the  same 
Homily  we  read,  "  '  So  God  loved  the  world,^  saith  St.  John, 
'that  He  gave  His  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  Him,  should  not  perish,  but  have  life  ever- 
[ib.  380.]  lasting.^  If  God  declared  so  great  love  towards  us,  His  silly 
creatures,  how  can  we  of  right  but  love  Him  again?  was 
not  this  a  sure  pledge  of  His  love,  to  give  us  His  own  Son 
from  heaven?  He  might  have  given  us  an  angel  if  He  would, 
or  some  other  creature,  and  yet  should  His  love  have  been 
far  above  our  deserts.  Now  He  gave  us  not  an  angel,  but 
His  Son.  And  what  Son  ?  His  only  Son,  His  natural  Son, 
His  weU-beloved  Son.  Even  that  Son  whom  He  had  made 
lord  and  ruler  over  all  things.  Was  not  this  a  singular 
token  of  great  love?  But  to  whom  did  He  give  Him?  He 
gave  Him  to  the  whole  world :  that  is  to  say,  Adam,  and  all 
that  should  come  after  hini.^'  AYhat  could  be  more  clearly 
stated  ? 

§  27.  Let  me  see,  however,  what  our  most  approved 
di\ines  have  deterrained  on  this  point,  and  those  too  who 
lived  at  the  time  when  the  Articles  and  Homilies  were  put 
forth.  We  again  appeal  to  the  two  Martyrs,  Hooper  and 
Latimer,  as  witnesses  to  this  doctrine  of  the  Church.  Hooper, 
in  his  Explan ation  of  the  Decalogue,  (of  which  valuable  work 
it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  through  our  own  carelessness 
scarcely  any  copies  remain,)  so  frcquently,  so  openly,  and  so 


Bishop  Hooper  again  appealed  to.  333 

vigorously  clefends  the  doctrine   of  the  universality  of  re-  s  E  c  T. 
demption  and  Divine  grace  through  Christ^  and  moreover. 


so  meets  the  principal  objections  brouglit  against  it^  that 

clearer  and  more  accurate   Statements   are   searcely  to   be 

found  amongst  the  learned  divines  of  our  own  age,  who  lived 

after  the  controversy  had  been  sifted.     But  let  us  hear  his 

own  words :  in  the  preface  to  this  Exposition,  he  says  :  "  All 

those,  that  be  comprehended  under  the  promise,  belong  to 

Christ.     And  as  far  extendeth  the  virtue   and  strength  of 

God's  promise  to  save  man,  as  the  rigour  and  justice  of  that 

law  for  sin  to  damn  man.     'Therefore  as  by  the  ofFence  of  Rom.  5. 

one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  unto  condemnation/  as     '  ^^' 

St.  Paul  saith,  '  even  so  by  the  righteovisness  of  one  the  free 

gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life.^    The  words 

of  the  promise  made  unto  Adam  and  Abraham  confirm  the 

same  :  they  are  these  :  '  I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  Gen.3.15. 

the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed;  it  shall 

bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel.'     For  as  we 

were  in  Adam  before  his  fall,  and  should,  if  he  had  not 

sinned,  have  been  of  the  same  innocence  and  perfection  that 

he  was  created  in ;  so  were  we  in  his  loins  when  he  sinned, 

and  participated  of  his  sin.     And  as  we  were  in  him,  and 

partakers  of  the  ill ;  so  were  we  in  him,  when  God  made  him 

a  promise  of  grace ;  and  we  are  partakers  of  the  same  grace, 

not  as  the  children  of  Adam,  but  as  the  children  of  promise. 

As  the  sins  of  Adam  without  pri\dlege  or  exception  extended 

and  appertained  unto  all  Adam^s  and  every  of  Adam's  pos- 

terity;  so  did  this  promise  of  grace  generally  appertain  as 

well  to  every  and  singular  of  Adam's  posterity,  as  to  Adam : 

as  it  is  more  plainly  expressed  where  God  promiseth  to  bless  Gen.  15. 4, 

in  the  seed  of  Abraham  all  the  people  of  the  world;  and^' 

Paul  maketh  no  diversity  in  Clu-ist  of  Jew  or  Gentile.     Für-  Gal.3. 28,- 

ther;  it  was  never  forbid,  but  that  all  sorts  of  people  and  of  ^°^'  ^'  ^^' 

every  progeny  in  the  world  should  be  made  partakers  of  the 

Jews'  religion  and  ceremonies.     Further;  St.  Paul  doth  b}'' Rom. 5. 15. 

coUation  of  Adam  and  Christ,  sin  and  grace,  thus  interpret 

God's  promise,  and  maketh  not  Christ  inferior  to  Adam,  nor  . 

grace  unto  sin.     If  all  then  shall  be  saved,  wliat  is  to  be  said 

of  those  that  St.  Peter  speakcth  of,  that  shall  perish  for  their  i  pet  2. 

false  doctrine.     And  likewise  Christ  saith,  that  the  gate  is 


334         Examples  of  Cain  and  Abel,  Saul  and  David. 
s  E  c  T.  straight  that  leadeth  to  life,  and  few  enter  ?    Thus  the  Scrip- 

VTT  -  • 

: —  ture  answereth,  that  the  promise  of  grace  appertaineth  to 


every  sort  of  men  in  the  world,  and  comprehendeth  them  all ; 
howbeit  within  certaiu  limits  and  bounds^  the  which  if  men 
neglect  or  pass  over,  they  exclude  themselves  from  the  pro- 
mise in  Christ.  As  Cain  was  no  more  excluded  tili  he  ex- 
cluded  himself,  than  Abel,  Saul  thau  Dand,  Judas  than 
Peter,  Esau  than  Jacob.  By  the  Scripture  it  seemeth  that 
the  sentence  of  God  was  given  to  save  the  one,  and  to  damn 
the  other,  before  the  one  loved  God,  or  the  other  hated  God. 
Howbeit  these  threatenings  of  God  against  Esau,  if  he  had 
not  of  his  wilful  malice  excluded  himself  from  the  promise  of 
grace,  should  no  more  have  hindered  his  salvation  than  God^s 

Jon.  1.  threatenings  against  Nineveh;  which  notwithstanding  that 
God  said  it  should  be  destroyed  within  forty  days,  stood  a 
great  time  after,  and  did  penance.  Esau  was  circumcised 
and  presented  unto  the  Church  of  God  by  his  father  Isaac 
in  all  external  ceremonies,  as  well  as  Jacob,  and  that  his  lifo 
and  conversation  were  not   as  agreeable  unto  justice  and 

Gen.  25.  equity  as  Jacob^s,  the  sentence  of  God  unto  Rebecca  was 
not  in  the  fault,  but  his  own  malice.  For  there  is  mentioned 
nothing  at  all  in  that  place  that  Esau  was  disinherited  of 
eternal  lifo,  but  that  he  should  be  inferior  to  his  brother 
Jacob  in  this  world :  which  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  their 
posterity,  and  not  in  the  persous  themselves.  Of  this  accepta- 
tion  of  the  one,  and  reprobation  of  the  other,  concerning  the 

Mal.l.  2,3.  promise  of  the  earth,  speaketh  Malachi  the  Prophet^  as  the 
beginning  of  his  book  declareth,  speaking  in  this  wise :  '  I 
have  loved  you,  saith  the  Lord :  yet  ye  say,  Wherein  hast 
Thou  loved  us?'  God  answereth,  'Was  not  Esau  Jacob's 
brother  ?  saith  the  Lord  :  notwithstanding  I  loved  Jacob  and 
hated  Esau.^  Wherein  hated  God  Esau  ?  the  Prophet  shew- 
cth :  '  I  laid  his  mountains  and  his  heritage  waste  for  dra- 
gons  of  the  wildemess.^  Wherein  he  loved  Jacob  the  text 
declareth.  God  transferred  the  right  and  title  that  apper- 
tained  unto  Esau  the  eider  brother,  to  Jacob  the  yoimger: 
likewise   the   land   that  was    promised   unto  Abraham  and 

Gen.  25.  Isaac,  was  by  legacy  and  testamcnt  given  unto  Jacob  and  his 
posterity.  St.  Paul  useth  this  example  of  Jacob  and  Esau 
for  none  other  purpose  but  to  take  away  from  the  Jews  the 


Cause  of  damnation,  sin  in  man.  335 

tliing  that  they  most  put  their  tnist  iu ;  tliat  is  to  say^  the  S  E  C  T. 

vain  hope  they  had  in  the  carnal  lineage  and  natural  descent  '- — 

from  the  family  and  household  of  Abraham;  and  likewise 
their  false  confidence  they  had  in  the  keeping  of  the  law  of 
Moses."  Thus  far  Hooper.  AVhich  of  the  di^ines  whom  Dr. 
Tully  insults  as  innovators,  could  wish  for  any  thing  more 
explicit  in  this  controversy  than  this  ?  And  it  is  especially 
to  he  observed,  that  the  blessed  Martyr  fully  and  entirely 
agrees  Tvith  us  in  his  explanation  of  that  celebrated  passage 
of  St.  Paul,  (Rom.  ix.,)  from  the  misconstruction  of  -^hich 
passage  the  Calvinists  have  deduced  their  di-eadful  doctrines 
which  we  are  now  opposing. 

§  28.  Presently  in  the  same  preface,  after  a  long  discussion 
on  original  sin,  (where  he  expressly  denies  that  the  image  of 
God  was  destroyed  in  man  by  it,)  he  goes  on  in  the  foUowing 
words.  "  And  this  imperfection  or  natural  sickness  taken  of 
Adam,  excludeth  not  the  person  from  the  promise  of  God  in 
Christ,  except  we  transgress  the  limits  and  bounds  of  this 
original  sin  by  our  own  folly  and  malice,  and  either  of  a  con- 
tempt  or  hate  of  God^s  word,  we  fall  into  sin,  and  transform 
ourselves  into  the  image  of  the  devil.  Then  we  exclude  by 
this  means  oiu-selves  from  the  proraises  and  raerits  of  Christ, 
Who  only  receives  our  iufirmities  and  original  disease,  and 
not  the  contempt  of  Him  and  His  law.  Fiu-ther,  the  pro- 
mises  appertain  to  such  as  repent.  Therefore  Isaiah  said 
without  exception,  that  the  infirmities  of  all  men  were  cast 
upon  His  blessed  Shoulder.  It  is  our  office,  therefore,  to  see 
we  exclude  not  ourselves  from  the  geueral  grace  jDromised  to 
all  men.  It  is  not  a  Christian  man^s  part  to  attribute  his 
salvation  to  his  own  free  will  with  the  Pelagian,  and  extenu- 
ate  original  sin ;  nor  to  make  God  the  author  of  ill  and  our 
damnation,  with  the  Manichee :  nor  yet  to  say,  God  hath 
written  fatal  laws,  as  the  Stoic,  and  with  necessity  of  destiny 
violently  puUeth  one  by  the  hair  into  heaven,  and  thrusteth 
the  other  headlong  into  hell.  But  ascertain  thyself  by  the 
Scripture,  what  be  the  causes  of  reprobation,  and  what  of 
election.  The  cause  of  rejection  or  damnation  is  sin  in  man, 
which  will  not  hear,  neither  receive  the  promise  of  the  Gos- 
pel ;  or  eise,  after  he  hath  received  it,  by  accustomed  doing 
of  ill,  falleth  either  into  a  contempt  of  the  Gospel,  and  will 


336  God  not  the  cause  of  sin  or  death. 

s  E  c  T.  not  study  to  live  tliereafterj  or  eise  liateth  the  Gospel,  be- 
cause  it  coudemnetli  bis  ungodly  Hfe^  and  would  there  -vrere 


neither  God  uor  Gospel  to  pimish  liim  for  doiug  of  ill/'  &c. 
"  This  senteuce  is  tiniCj  howsoever  meu  judge  of  predestina- 
tion :  God  is  not  the  cause  of  sin,  nor  would  have  man  to 
Ps.  5.  4.  sin.  'Thou  art  not  a  God  that  hath  pleasure  in  "vrickedness  :' 
Hos.  13.9.  and  it  is  said,  'O  Israel,  thou  hast  destroved  thyself :  but  in 
Me  is  thine  help.'  The  cause  of  our  election  is  the  mercy  of 
God  in  Christ.  Howbeit,  he  that  -wül  be  partaker  of  this 
election  must  receive  the  promise  in  Christ  by  faith.  For, 
Eph.  1 ;  therefore  are  vre  elected,  because  afterwai-ds  Ave  are  made  the 
members  of  Christ.  Therefore,  as  in  the  justification  or 
remission  of  sin  there  is  a  cause,  though  no  dignity  at  all,  in 
the  receiver  of  bis  justification,  and  so  vve  judge  bim  by  the 
Scripture  to  be  justified,  and  to  have  remission  of  bis  sin, 
because  he  received  the  grace  promised  in  Christ :  so  we 
judge  of  election  by  the  event  or  success  that  happeneth  in 
the  life  of  man,  those  only  to  be  elected  that  by  faith  appre- 
heud  the  mercy  promised  in  Christ." 

Nothing  surely  cau  be  plainer  than  all  this,  as  opposed  to 
those  pernicious  doctrines  of  some  Avhom  he  elsewhere  calls 
evangelicals,  and  vrhich,  derived  from  the  writings  of  Cahin, 
were  beginning  to  spread  in  England  diu'ing  the  holy  Martyr's 
time.  For  he  clearly  teaches,  Ist,  that  to  the  sia  and  misery 
which  we  derive  from  the  first  Adam,  the  grace  of  Christ  the 
second  Adam  is  so  entirely  equal,  that  no  one  incurs  eternal 
damnation  on  account  of  original  sin  alone.  2ndly,  that 
Christ  bore  on  His  Cross  the  infirmities  of  all  men  without 
exception.  3rdly,  that  men  are  by  no  means  dra-vrn  to  salva- 
tion  or  thrust  into  hell  fire  by  a  fatal  necessity.  4thly,  that 
the  sola  cause  of  reprobation  is  sin  in  man,  not  any  kind  of 
sin,  but  only  a  contempt  of  the  word  or  grace  of  God  Tvhich 
has  been  solemnly  oÖ'ered  him.  Nay,  he  even  goes  farther 
than  this,  and  teaches,  öthly,  that  man  is  therefore  chosen 
by  God  from  everlasting,  because  in  after  time  he  was  made 
a  member  of  Chi-ist,  (wliich  perhaps  is  intended  in  the 
seventeenth  article  of  our  Church,  by  the  phrase,  '  chosen  in 
Christ.')  6thly,  and  lastly,  that  the  election  of  man  from 
everlasting,  although  it  have  for  its  object,  man  embracing 
the  grace  of  Christ  by  faith,  still  is  entirely  gratuitous :  just 


Games  of  election  above  reason.  337 

as  iustification.  which  takes  place  in  time,  is  altogether  gra-  s  E  c  T 

vir. 


tuitous,  notwithstanding  the  condition  of  faith  is  requii'ed  in 
him  tbat  is  to  be  justified.  Should  the  reader  wisli  to  know 
more  on  this  subject,  he  may  be  referred  to  the  remainder  of 
this  same  preface,  and  also  to  the  seventeenth  and  nineteenth 
chapters  of  the  work  itself. 

§  29.  It,  must  carefuUy  be  observed,  that  this  last  passage 
froni  Bishop  Hooper  is  in  great  measure  transcribed  nearly 
Word  for  word  from  Philip  ]Melancthon,  who  drew  up  the 
Augsburg  Confession;  whose  doctrines,  as  I  have  elsewhere 
mentionedj  were  adopted  by  the  first  movers  of  our  Refor- 
mation, as  being  especially  agreeable  to  Scripture  and  the 
teaching  of  the  aucient  Church,  while  they  rejected  Calrin's 
tenets.  For  my  own  part,  I  have  do  doubt  of  my  assertion, 
but  without  taking  my  opinion,  the  reader  can  judge  for 
himself  in  the  foUowäng  passage  from  his  Loci  Theologici :  Corp. 
treating  of  Predestination,  he  says,  "  There  is  alvrays  much  559"r'op. 
dispute  touching  the  cause  of  election ;  as  for  instance,  Cain  voh  i.  p. 
and  Abel  disputed  on  the  cause  of  one  being  preferred  to  the  " 
other;  and  again  Esau  and  Jacob,  and  generally,  those 
persons  who  only  know  the  teaching  of  reason  or  the  law, 
think  of  some  human  judge,  and  thence  infer  that  a  law  or 
our  own  merits  and  worthiness  are  the  causes  of  election. 
So  thought  the  Jews,  and  so  most  writers  on  the  Sentences  senten- 
have  written.  We,  on  the  other  band,  hold  these  three 
positions :  first,  we  have  no  right  to  form  our  judgment 
about  election  either  from  reason  or  law,  but  from  the 
Gospel :  secondly,  the  whole  number  of  those  who  are  to  be 
saved  for  Christas  sake  are  elected ;  wherefore,  unless  we  have 
the  knowledge  of  Christ,  we  can  say  nothing  about  election  : 
thirdly,  we  must  not  look  for  one  cause  for  justification,  and 
a  diflFerent  one  for  election.  Peter  is  elected  because  he  is  a 
member  of  Christ :  so  also  is  he  righteous,  that  is,  pleasing  to 
God,  because  by  faith  he  was  made  a  member  of  Christ.  As 
therefore,  when  we  speak  of  justification,  we  start  from  the 
Gospel,  or  from  the  knowledge  of  the  voice  of  the  Gospel,  so 
when  we  are  going  to  speak  about  election,  we  must  know 
the  voice  of  the  Gospel:  so  must  we  form  our  judgments, 
who  are  bouud  to  begiu  from  the  knowledge  of  Christ 
and  of  His  Gospel.     Let  us  seek  therefore  for  the  promise  in 


338  Election,  thefree  mercy  of  God. 

s  E  c  T.  which  God  has  declared  His  -will,  and  let  us  be  sui'e  that  there 
'- —  is  no  other  will  to  be  souglit  for  conceming  grace  beside  the 


Word/^  &c.  Soon  after  lie  says,  "  It  is  certain  tliat  this  is 
tlie  cause  of  reprobatioiij  namely^  sin  in  men  who  neither 
bear  nor  receive  tbe  Gospel,  or  Avbo  reject  tbe  faitb  before 
tbey  depart  bence.  In  such  as  tbese  their  own  sins  and 
carnal  will  are  tbe  cause  of  tbeir  reprobation.  For  most  true 
is  it,  tbat  God  is  not  the  cause  of  sin,  neither  willeth  sin. 

Ps.  5.  4.     For  the  Psalmist  saith,  '  For  Thou  art  the  God  that  hast  no 

cb.  13.  9.  pleasure  in  wickedness/  and  Hosea,  'O  Israel,  thou  hast 
destroyed  thvself ;  but  in  Me  is  thine  help/  Saul  by  his  own 
will  lost  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  his  own  will  opposed  His  holy 
niotions.  Thus  much  is  certain  touching  the  cause  of  rejec- 
tion  or  reprobation :  for  a  promise  requireth  faith.  But  on 
the  other  band,  it  is  rightly  affirmed,  that  the  cause  of 
election  is  mercy  in  the  will  of  God,  Who  wills  not  the 
destruction  of  all  maukind,  but  for  His  Son's  sake  gatbers 
together   and  preserves    His   Church.      This   is    St.  Paul's 

Ex.  33. 19.  meaning,  when  in  Rom.  ix.  15,  he  quotes  the  saying,  'I  vriW 
have  mercy  on  whom  I  wiU  have  mercy .^  He  is  denying 
that  men  were  elected  for  the  law's  sake,  or  for  any  preroga- 
tive  of  race,  that  it  may  be  clearer  that  the  Church  is  elected 
and  built  for  His  Son's  sake :  nevertheless,  in  the  receiver 
there  must  be  an  apprehension  of  the  promise,  namely,  the 
knowledge  of  Chnst.  For  for  this  cause  are  we  elected,  be- 
cause  we  are  members  of  Christ.  Therefore  we  say  that  in 
justification  there  is  a  certain  cause  in  the  receiver,  not 
worthiness,  but  in  that  he  apprehends  the  promise,  together 
with  which  tbe  Holy  Spirit  operates ;  as  St.  Paul  says, '  Faith 
cometh  of  hearing;'  and  thus  we  judge  concerning  election, 
a  posteriori,  viz.  that  without  doubt  tbey  are  elected  who 
apprehend  by  faith  the  mercy  promised  through  Christ,  and 
retain  that  faith  unto  the  end."  Who  does  not  now  see  that 
Bishop  Hooper  had  imbibed  much  of  Melancthon's  teaching  ? 
Tbe  füllowing  words  occur  in  the  same  passage  :  "  So  when  it 

Joh.  6.  iKis  Said  in  St.  John,  'Xo  man  can  come  to  Me  except  the 
Father  which  liath  sent  Me  draw  him,^  it  imraediately  foUows, 
'  Every  man  therefore  tbat  hath  heard  and  hath  learned  of 
the  Father,  cometh  unto  ]\le.'  God  begins  and  di'aws  us  by 
His  "Word  and  Holy  Spirit :  but  it  is  our  duty  to  hear  and 


Latimer  on  election.  339 

learn,  that  is,  to  apprehend  the  promise,  not  oppose  our-  s  E  c  T. 

selves,  or  indulge  in  hesitation  or  doubt."     BisTiop  Hooper,  a ^^^' ., 

little  after  tlie  last  passage  quoted  from  him,  gives  precisely 
the  same  explanation.  "  John  saitli,  '  No  man  cometh  to  Me, 
except  My  Fatlier  draw  him/  Many  men  understand  these 
words  in  a  wrong  sense,  as  tliough  God  required  in  a  reason- 
able  man  no  more  tlian  in  a  dead  post,  and  do  not  attend  to 
tlie  words  that  foUow ;  '  Every  man  that  hath  heard  and  hath 
learned  of  the  Father,  cometh  to  Me/  God  draAveth  with 
His  Word  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  man's  duty  is  to  hear 
and  learn,  that  is  to  say,  receive  the  grace  offered,  consent 
to  the  promise,  and  not  repugn  the  God  that  calleth."  These 
quotations,  though  by  the  way,  have  not  been  I  trust  in 
vain. 

§  30.  We  now  come  to  our  other  witness^  the  pious 
Latimer.  He  too,  Uke  his  associate  Hooper,  supports  and 
defends  the  teaching  of  Melancthon  in  many  passages;  a 
few  of  which  I  will  now  quote.  In  his  Sermon  preached  on  Lat.  Ser- 
Septuagesima  Sunday,  we  read  :  "  But  when  we  are  about  -Ij^p^'^fs. 
this  matter,  (nameh^  election,)  and  are  troubled  within  oiu'- 
selves  whether  wee  bee  elect  or  no :  we  must  ever  have  this 
maxime  or  principall  rule  before  our  eyes,  namely,  that  God 
beareth  a  good  -^ill  towards  us.  But  you  will  say,  how  shall 
I  know  that  ?  or  how  shall  I  believe  that  ?  we  may  know 
God^s  will  towai'ds  us  through  Christ,  God  hath  opened 
Himself  unto  us  by  His  Sonne  Christ.  For  so  saith  St.  John 
the  Evangelist :  Filius  qui  est  in  sinu  Patris  ipse  revelavit, 
that  is,  '  The  Sonne  which  is  in  the  bosorae  of  the  Father, 
He  hath  revealed.'  Therefore  we  may  perceive  His  good 
will  and  love  towards  us.  He  hath  sent  the  same  His  Son 
into  this  world,  which  hath  sufFered  most  painfull  death  for 
US.  Shall  I  now  think  that  God  hateth  me?  Or  shall  I 
doubt  of  His  love  towards  me?  Heere  you  see  how  you  shall 
avoyd  the  scrupulous  and  most  dangerous  question  of  the 
predestination  of  God.  For  if  thou  wilt  enquire  His  coun- 
sailes,  and  enter  into  His  consistory,  thy  wit  will  deceive 
thee,  for  thou  shalt  not  be  able  to  search  the  counsailes  of 
God.  But  if  thou  begin  with  Christ  and  consider  His 
Coming  into  the  Avorld,  and  dost  believe  that  God  hath  sent 
Him  for  thy  sake,  to  suffer  for  thee,  and  deliver  thee  from 

z  2 


340  God  would  have  all  man  saved. 

s  E  c  T.  sin,  death,  the  de^ill,  and  hell,  theu  when  thou  art  so  ai'med 

VII 

'- —  with  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  this  simple  question  cannot 

hurt  thee ;  For  thou  art  in  the  book  of  hfe  which  is  Christ 
Himself .  Also  we  learne  by  this  sentence,  Multi  sunt  vocati  : 
'that  many  are  called  :'  that  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  is 
uuiversall,  that  it  pertaineth  to  all  maukind :  That  it  is 
Ps.  19.  4.  written,  In  omnem  terram  exivit  sonus  eorum,  '  Through  the 
Rom.  10.  "whole  eai'th  their  sound  is  heard.'  Now  seeing  that  the 
Gospel  is  universall,  it  appeareth  He  would  have  all  mankind 
saved,  and  that  the  fault  is  not  in  Hirn  if  we  be  damned. 
For  it  is  written  thus.  Deus  vult  Omnes  homines  salvos  fieri, 
'God  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved/ -"^  The  remainder  of 
the  sermon  should  be  read,  which  for  bre\dty  sake  is  now 
omitted.  In  the  sermon  also  on  the  first  Sunday  after 
Part  iii.  Epiphany  we  read,  "  For  if  the  most  part  be  damned,  the 
p.  207.  fault  is  not  in  God  but  in  themselves ;  for  it  is  written,  Deus 
vult  omnes  homines  salvos  fieri,  '  God  would  that  all  men 
should  be  saved.'  But  they  themselves  procure  their  owne 
damnation.'^  And  again  in  the  same  sermon,  "Think  that 
God  hath  chosen  those  that  believe  in  Christ,  and  that 
Christ  is  the  booke  of  life :  If  thou  believest  in  Hirn,  then 
thou  art  written  in  the  booke  of  life,  and  shalt  be  saved.  So 
we  need  not  go  about  to  trouble  ourselves  with  cuiüous 
questions  of  the  predestination  of  God."  Where  he  says, 
"  If  thou  believest  in  Him,  then  thou  art  written  in  the  book 
of  life,''  Ave  must  understand  a  persevering  faith;  and  that 
this  is  bis  meaning  is  piain,  from  what  he  says  immediately 
after :  "  So  we  may  be  in  the  booke  one  time,  and  afterward 
when  we  forget  God  and  His  Word,  and  doe  wickedly,  we 
come  out  of  the  booke,"  which  words  have  been  already 
quoted  on  the  subject  of  perseverance.  Lastly,  (to  omit 
many  passages  of  the  same  purport,)  the  holy  Father  in  his 
Part  ii.  sixth  sermou  on  the  Lord's  Prayer,  when  speaking  against 
P"  ^^"  the  Novatian  heresy,  says,  "  Christ  alone,  and  none  eise,  hath 
merited  remission,  justification,  and  so  eternal  blessedness 
for  all  those  who  will  beheve  this ;  they  who  will  not  believe 
it,  will  not  enjoy  them.  For  Christ  poured  forth  no  less  a 
portion  of  His  blood  for  Judas  than  for  Peter ;  Peter  believed 
and  was  saved,  Judas  would  not  believe  and  therefore  was  he 
damned,  and  he  himself  the  sole  author  of  his  damnation." 


English  Reformation  not  Calvinistic.  341 

Good  Lord  !  for  what  times  hast  Thou  reserved  us  !  If  tliis  s  E  c  t. 

holy  Martyr  vrere  now  aUve,  and  were  either  to  write  or  ^ — 

preach  these  same  doctrines,  how  would  tlie  zealots  of  these 
days  exclaim  against  him,  as  one  accursed !  how  would  they 
not  bespatter  him  with  the  name  of  heretic,  Pelagian, 
Arminian^  and  the  like  reproaches  !  Forsooth  these  gentle- 
men  boast  about  their  agreement  with  the  first  movers  of  our 
Reformation,  and  yet  meanwhile  they  defame  in  the  ears  of 
the  unlearned  as  innovators,  and  endeavour  in  every  way  to 
oppress,  those  who  teach  nothing  but  what  those  holy  men 
taught  before  them.     But  I  forbear. 

§  31.  From  what  has  already  been  said  concerning  the 
doctrine  of  our  Church,  the  reader  will  perceive  with  what 
judgment  Dr.  Tully  attributed  the  following  words  to  those  Justif. 
whom  he  calls  innovators  :  namely,  that  "  the  Fathers  of  our  ^^  '^" 
Reformation  were  good  men,  but  savoured  somewhat  of 
Calvinism  or  fanaticism/^  Here  certainly  Dr.  Tully  is  alto- 
gether  mistaken :  no  one  of  these  innovators  in  his  senses 
would  have  said  this.  For  allowing,  as  we  do,  that  Calvin 
was  a  man  of  great  ability,  and  in  many  points  of  much 
Service  in  the  Reformation,  still  it  must  be  quite  ckar  that 
the  first  movers  of  the  Reformation  were  entirely  opposed  to 
him  as  well  in  discipline  as  in  docti'ine,  in  so  far  as  he  differed 
both  fi'om  Melancthon  and  other  more  ancient  teachers  of  a 
restored  and  purer  Christianity.  For  granting  these  two 
positions,  Ist,  that  Christ  has  truly  redeemed  even  those 
who  perish :  2ndly,  that  it  is  possible  for  those  who  really 
believe  in  Christ,  and  have  been  justified  by  Him,  thoroughly 
to  fall  away  through  their  own  fault,  from  faith  and  justifi- 
cation,  and  to  perish  everlastingly,  (and  these  are  piain  and 
undoubted  doctrines  of  our  Church,)  the  whole  system  and 
machinery  of  what  is  called  Calvinism  falls  to  the  ground : 
and  this  will  presently  be  piain  to  any  one  who  shall  pay  the 
least  attention  to  the  subject.  Xow  it  is  of  no  use  to  refer 
here  to  the  article  on  predestiuation :  nor  shall  I  enter  into 
a  controversy  with  any  one  on  any  prcdestination  of  God  so 
maintained  as  not  to  overturn  these  two  fundamental  points 
clearly  laid  down  by  our  Church.  I  contend  for  this  one 
thing  only  :  that  on  account  of  the  unccrtain  and  various 
ideas  and  specidations  of  God's  secret   predestiuation,  wc 


342  Our  Church  forbids  speculations. 

s  E  c  T.  must  not  deny  such  clear  and  establislied  doctrines  botli  of 

'- —  Scripture  and  of  our  own  and  the  Catholic  Chui'ch  as  these 

are,  but  rather  believe  that  these  secret  things  are  so  to  be 
explained  by  what  is  revealed  and  piain  to  us,  that  the  one 
may  be  consistent  with  the  other :  which  a  learned  prelate 
sorae  time  since  recommended.  Our  Church  in  her  seven- 
teenth  article  has  so  cautiously  given  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination,  that  no  Cathohc  can  have  any  cause  for  reject- 
ing  the  article,  especially  if  Hooper  (who  took  a  leading  part 
in  the  Synod  which  first  sent  forth  our  Articles),  or  Bishop 
Latimer  his  contemporary,  be  considered  a  competent  inter- 
preter  of  its  words.  But  even  after  our  Church  had  so  pru- 
dently  and  cautiously  explained  this  doctrine,  she  altogether 
draws  away  her  sons  from  any  speculation  respecting  it,  and 
disallows  that  our  life  was  to  be  directed  by  any  conception 
concerning  predestination,  as  by  a  rule :  on  the  contrary, 
Art.  17.  she  teaches  that  "  God^s  promises  must  be  received  in 
such  wise,  as  they  be  generally  set  forth  to  us  in  Holy 
Scripture :  and  in  our  doings,  that  Will  of  God  is  to  be 
followed,  which  we  have  expressly  declared  to  us  in  the  Word 
of  God/^ 

This  also  the  Augsburg  divines  had  done  before.  "  There 
is  no  need  here"  (say  they,  when  treating  of  faith)  "of  dis- 
putations  about  predestination,  and  the  like :  for  the  pro- 
mise  is  universal."  In  truth,  for  the  first  four  centuries  no 
Catholic  ever  dreamed  about  that  predestination  which  many 
at  this  day  consider  the  basis  and  foundation  of  the  whole 
Christian  religion :  those  excellent  Christians,  glorious  both 
in  their  hves  and  death,  lived  and  died  relying  ou  such 
grounds  as  these :  that  Christ  is  the  common  Saviour  of 
mankiud :  that  no  one  to  whom  the  Gospel  of  Christ  was 
known  could  possibly  attain  unto  hcavenh^  blessedncss  with- 
out  obedience  to  the  Gospel  commands :  that  without  grace 
and  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  it  was  impossible  to  keep  those 
commands  :  that  the  gracc  of  God  did  not  efFect  the  salvation 
of  man  without  his  own  diligence  co-operating  with  it :  that 
such  grace  was  withhcld  from  no  man :  that  he  who  had 
been  put  into  a  state  of  salvation  tlu'ough  the  grace  of  God, 
might  by  his  own  fault  fall  thcrcfrom,  and  perish  ever- 
lastingly  :    and  thence,   that   it   Mas  his  duty  who  stood  to 


Opinion  of  antiquity  on  predestination.  343 

take  heed  lest  he  fall.     Such  axioms,  I  sav,  as  these,  and  s  E  c  T. 

VII. 


the  like^  were  the  rule  of  their  lives.  Touching  the  pro\i- 
dence  of  God,  they  were  satisfied  in  believing'i  that  God 
knows  beforehand  all  the  actions  of  all  men^  and  that  He 
also  rules  and  disposes  the  same  as  seemeth  best  to  Ilis 
wisdom,  justice,  and  goodness,  saving  always  that  liberty 
wliich  He  has  given  to  man,  ever  continuing  unencroached 
upon.  Whether  froni  those  more  minute  definitions  of  the 
predestination  of  God,  which  Avere  made  in  the  heated  con- 
troversy  of  St.  Augustine  with  Pelagius,  any  gain  accrued  to 
Catholic  truth",  Christian  piety,  and  the  peace  of  the  Church  : 
or  whether  we  have  not  rather  thence  to  lament  over  schism 
and  very  grievous  errors,  (as  those  of  the  Predestinarians,) 
and  a  falling  off  in  the  morals  of  men,  let  those  well  taught 
in  the  history  of  the  Church  decide.  To  conclude,  then,  let 
US  heartily  embrace  and  reverence  that  niost  wise  decree  of 
cur  King  prefixed  to  the  Articles.  "  That,  therefore,  in 
these  both  curious  and  unhappy  differences,  which  have  for 
so  many  hundred  years  in  different  times  and  places  exer- 
cised  the  Church  of  Christ,  We  will  that  all  further  curious 
search  be  laid  aside,  and  these  disputes  shut  up  in  God^s 
promises,  as  they  be  generally  set  forth  to  us  in  the  Holy 

"  "Ancient  opinions  on  this  matter  their  pleading  or  rather  complaint  was 

being  reviewed,  nearly  all  were  found  turned  to  this :  with  the  agreement  of 

to  agree  upon  the  way  in  which  they  those  who  did  not  dare  to  disapprove 

should   understand    the    purpose    and  of  this  definition,  they  said,  What  was 

predestination  of  God  according  to  His  the  use  of  troubling  the  minds  of  so 

foreknowledge:   namely,  that  God  had  many  of  less  knowledge  with  these  un- 

made  some  vessels  to  honour,  some  to  certain  disputations  ?     For  with  no  less 

dishonour,  for  this  reason,  because  He  advantage  lias  the  Catholic  Faith  been 

foresaw  the  end  of  each,  and  foreknew  defended,  without  this  definition,  for  so 

whatwouldbe  his  will  and  actions  under  many  years,  by  so  many  writers,  by  so 

tbeheli^ofHisgrace." — Prosper,Epistle  many  books,  both    of  your   own    and 

to  Augustine  on  the  remains  of  the  Pe-  others,  as  weil  against  other  heretics 

lagian  heresy,  near  the  end.  as    especially  against   the   Pelagians." 

°  Hilary  (of  Arles  or  Syracuse)  in  Ca^lestinus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  with  his 

his  Epistle  to  Augustine, '  de  iSIassilen-  clergy  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Bishops  of 

sium  Sententia,'  says  that  there  were  Gaul,  gave  the  same  opinion  on  these 

those  amongst  the  Catholics  who  though  new  Statements   of  Augustine  (Epist. 

they  dare  not  say  that  the  dognia  of  for  Prosper  and  Hilary  on  tlie  grace  of 

Augustine   on  absolute   predestination  God.     See  Cassian's  Works,   1628.  p. 

was   entirely  false,  yet   did    say,  both  905.   towards    the   end).     "  The   more 

that  it  was  new,  and  that  it  might  be  deep   and   difficult  parts"    (they  say) 

kept  silent  without  any  dangor  to  the  "  of  the    questions    before    us,    wliich 

more  confirmed,  and  that  it  would  be  those  who  have  withstood  heretics  have 

taught  with  great  peril  to  the  weaker  handled  at  greater  length,  as  we  do  not 

brethren.      His    words   are    (see    ("as-  dare  despise  them,  so  we  do  not  hold 

sander's  Works,  Paris,  Itilß.  p.  648):  it  necessary  to  support  them." 
"  In  short,  when  we  were  all  worn  out, 


344       Dr.  TuUy  considers  all  works  opposed  to  grace. 

S  E  C  T.  Scripture,  and  the  general  meaning  of  tlie  Articles  of  the 
'- —  Chui'ch  of  England  accordiiig  to  them." 


I  could  also  bring  forward  other  tenets  of  the  Doctor,  in 
wliich  lie  has  departed  from  the  judgment  of  the  English 
Chui'ch :  but  these  are  of  less  importance,  and  what  I  have 
already  said  väM  abundantly  prove  our  point,  namely,  that 
Dr.  Tully,  in  certain  points  of  Chi'istian  doctrine,  teaches 
altogether  contrary  to  the  English,  and  others  of  the  chief 
reformed  Churches,  and  even  of  the  Catholic  Church.  And 
now  let  US  retui-n  to  his  Justification  as  tauglit  by  St.  Paul. 

SECTIOS  VIII. 

ON  THE  REMAINING  CHAPTERS. 

§  1.  Every  thing  that  Dr.  Tally  has  brought  forward 
against  the  author  of  the  Ilarmony  in  the  remaining  chap- 
ters  of  his  work,  at  least  wliatever  was  of  importance,  has 
been  refuted  at  some  leugth  in  our  Examination  of  the 
Censure.  In  truth,  the  Censurer  had  already  taken  out  of 
his  hands  nearly  all  matter  for  argument.  And  indeed, 
those  short  strictui'es  or  censures,  which,  as  it  seems,  he 
wrote  on  the  margin  of  my  book,  however  little  they  amount 
to,  look  more  like  a  faii*  answer  than  what  Dr.  Tully  has  re- 
phed  to  US  in  tliis  his  elaborate  work.  I  shall  leave  it  to  the 
candid  reader  to  decide  whether  I  say  this  truly  or  not. 
.lust.  Paul.  I  confess,  some  of  Dr.  Tnlly's  arguments  are  peculiarly  his 
''■  ■  own  !  as  for  instauce ;  "  All  the  works  commanded  in  the 
Divine  law,  are  in  justification  opposed  to  grace :  all  kinds  of 
good  works  are  commanded  in  such  a  law :  therefore  they 
are  so  far  opposed  to  grace."  According  to  which  argument, 
'faith'  and  '  rcpentance,^  commanded  in  the  Gospel  law  are 
'works  opposed  to  grace  :^  and  this  too,  because  they  are 
commanded  in  some  law :  as  if  it  were  repugnant  to  grace 
and  the  liberty  of  the  Gospel  for  a  Christian  to  be  under 
Just.  Paul.  Obligation  to  some  law.  Again,  (and  he  is  excessively 
^"  ■■  pleased  with  this  argument,)  "If  we  are  justified  by  works, 
not  on  account  of  auy  worthiness  in  theni,  what  is  there  to 
prevent  our  being  justified  by  indiftercnt  works,  as  well  as 
a^iiKpSpoiz  by  good  ones  ?"  As  if  indeed  there  were  no  good  work  in- 
termediate  between   au  indifferent   and  a  meritorious  one, 


'  Fitness*  or  '  Wbrthiness'  expla'med.  345 

and  by  whicli  we  are  disposed  and  rendered  fit  to  receiA'e  the   S  E  C  T. 
free   gifts   of  God ;  which  '  fitness'  is    sometinaes  called   in 


Scripture  '  "wortlimessP  :'  or  as  if  any  of  us  had  detracted  the  dignitas 
wortliiness  of  this  '  fituess'  from  good  works,  or  attributed  ideonei- 
that  of  merit  to  them  :  or,  lastly,  as  if  it  were  true  that  a 
man  was  made  fit  to  receive  Diwane  blessings  as  well  by  in- 
different as  by  good  works.  He,  indeed,  must  have  much 
leisure  who  has  time  to  refute  at  any  length  such  sopliistry 
as  all  tliis.  It  therefore  wonld  have  been  eiiough  for  nie  to 
let  these  remaining  chapters  go  without  any  foi-ther  answer, 
had  not  certain  monstrous  calumnies  stopped  me,  (I  woiild 
with  Dr.  Tully  that  the  indignity  of  the  thing  admitted  of 
milder  expressions  !)  and  which,  unless  I  wished  to  appear 
altogether  careless  about  my  reputation,  it  was  necessary 
for  me  to  answer. 

§  3.  In    his    fifth    chapter,    Dr.   Tully   says    that   "thep.  43. 
Harmonist    mildly  attaeks    the    orthodox  who    are  opposed 
to  him  under  the  name  of  Solifidians  :  and  that  with  him 
and   his    companions    all    are    Solifidians    who   would  sepa- 
rate this   '  bugbear'  of  works  from  righteousness  :  namely, 
the  Fathers,  the  Enghsh,  and  all  the  reformed  Churches." 
And  yet  he,  the  very  same  person,  in  another  place  confesses  JustPaul. 
that  ''  I  am  not  averse  to  an  alliance  with  those  veteran  P"     * 
Champions   and  leaders,  but  that  I  rather  anxiously  court 
one :"  he  acknowledges  that  "  I  at  least  pretend  that  all  the  p.  28. 
Confessions  of  the  reformed  Church,  or  at  least  the  chief  of 
them,  are  on  my  side."     What  consistency  is  there  in  all 
this  ?    Certainly,  I  never  intended  to  declare  war  against  the 
reformed  Church,  not   to   say   against  the   Fathers.      This 

1"  "  In  the  Holy  Scriptures  the  faith-  For  as  he  that  is  truly  contrite  is  Said 

ful  are  called  '  wortliy,'  in  this  or  that  to  be  worthy  of  pardon,  not   because 

respect,  not  because  their  nierits   are  the  contrition  itself  merits  pardon,  but 

equal  or  commensurate  to  the  obtain-  because  it  is  that  disposition  to  which 

ing  such  a  thing,  but  because  they  are  God  has  determined  to  grant  pardon, 

sodisposed.that  according  to  theDivine  so  the  believer  who  strives  after  holi- 

dispensation   they   are    fit   persons   to  ness  is  said  to  be  worthy  the  kingdoni 

whom  God   shall   be   pleased  to    give  of  heaven,   not  because    our    faith    or 

such  a  reward.    The  word  '  worthiness'  holincss    merit  heaven  of  condignity, 

therefore  does  not  prove  that  there  is  but  because  there  is  in  them  tliat  fit- 

any  merit,  properly  so  termed,  in  him  ting  disposition,  to  which  the  kingdom 

who  is  called  worthy  of  the  kingdoni  of  heaven    is   promised   by   God,    the 

of  heaven,  but  only  shews  that  he  has  Fathcr  of  mercies,"  &c. — Davenant  on 

that  disposition   or  that  fitness   wliich  actual    righteousness,  eh.   Ix.   p.   6ü5, 

God   requires   beforehand   in    those  to  G06. 
whom  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  glven. 


346  Charge  of  time-serving  answered. 

s  E  c  T.  however  I  constantly  affirm,  (which.  also  I  have  proved  above,) 

'—  that  there  are  very  many  persons  who  though  they  chatter  of 

nothing  more  than  of  Fathers  and  reformed  Chiu'ches,  never- 
theless  are  very  far  from  the  true  doctrine  either  of  the 
Fathers  or  of  the  most  ancient  reformed  Churches ;  and  they 
surely  deserve  to  be  called  Sohfidians  who  attribute  justifica- 
tiou  to  'faith  only^^  a  siugle  virtue  to  the  exclusion  of  true 
repentance,  as  being  in  nowise  necessary  for  obtaining  justifi- 
cation.  I  leave  it  to  the  judgment  of  all  to  decide  whether 
I  have  not  proved  Dr.  Tally  to  be  guilty  of  this  Solifidianism, 
and  have  not  liberated  the  Chnrch  of  England  and  the  rest 
of  the  reformed  Churches  from  that  chai'ge.  jSTot  content, 
however,  with  these  accusations,  Dr.  Tully  thus  proceeds  in 
bis  attacks  upon  the  Harmonist  and  bis  friends.  "  What  more 
can  be  said,  but  that  these  and  the  like  '  Stigmata^  branded 
upon  the  truth,  if  they  are  not  to  be  time-serving,  which  is 
mucli  to  be  feared,  are  either  the  foUies  of  sciolists,  or  the 
calumnies  of  malicious  persons  ?"  Which  is  jnst  as  much  as 
saying  the  Harmonist  and  bis  friends  are  either  fools  or 
rogues.  No  sensible  person  will  care  to  be  despised  as  a  fool 
or  sciolist  by  the  Doctor  who  shall  just  consider  what  kind  of 
spirit  manifests  itself  in  nearly  every  thiug  he  writes.  But 
when  he  speaks  of  us  as  time-serving,  this  cannot  be  passed 
over  in  silence.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  make  the  same  answer 
as  a  great  man  once  did  to  a  charge  not  unlike  the  present  : 
"  Low  and  venal  minds  are  wont  to  judge  of  others  by  them- 
selves  :^'  for  I  trust  that  it  is  far  different  with  Dr.  Tully. 
Nor  will  I  say  any  tliing  for  the  Ilarmonist's  friends,  who  are 
cid  enough  to  answer  for  themselves.  But  as  far  as  I  myself 
am  concerned,  I  am  as  Ignorant  as  man  can  be  of  that  base 
art  of  so  tempcring  my  divinity  that  it  may  serve  the  times 
against  the  truth.  When  I  first  devotcd  myself  to  divinity 
and  the  Church,  God  knows  how  sincerely  I  did  so,  and  how 
zealous  and  anxious  were  my  desires  for  promoting  His  glory 
and  the  salvation  of  souls.  For  having  experienced  in  my 
youth  the  immense  mercy  and  favour  of  God  towards  most 
grievous  sinners,  that  saying  of  our  Lord  to  Peter  was  ever 
sounding  in  my  ears,  "  when  tliou  art  converted  strengthen 
thy  brethren."  Ilence,  when  the  Church  of  England  was 
well-nigh  deserted  by  most  of  her  own  childrcn,  and  openly 


How  St.  Paul  rejects  ritual  works.  S4>7 

derided  by  her  enemies,  having  been  admitted  to  Holy  Orders   s  E  c  T. 
according  to  lier  rites,  I    devoted  myself  to   her,   and  for — 


some  years  served  her  almost  gratuitously.  And  I  can  truly 
affirm  that  I  have  spent  a  large  part  of  my  patrimony  in  the 
Service  of  the  Chui'ch :  for  which  duty  I  think  I  may  surely 
Claim  this  one  reward,  and  with  this  I  shall  be  content, 
namely,  to  be  considered  by  the  Doctor  and  others  as  a  true 
sou  of  the  Church.  Those  doctrines  for  which  Dr.  Tully 
taunts  me  as  an  innovator  and  a  temporizer,  (thongh  I  know 
not  for  whom,)  and  which  I  am  most  persuaded  are  no 
other  but  the  very  decrees  of  the  Cathohc  and  our  owa 
Chm'ch,  these  I  say,  I  have  openly,  freely,  and  constantly 
held  and  taught  during  the  very  overthrow  both  of  our  Church 
and  kingdom,  and  was  for  so  doing  attacked  on  all  sides  by 
the  hatred  and  reproaches  of  schismatics.  But  would  that 
the  reverend  gentleman  had  not  driven  me  to  this  foohshness 
of  boasting  ! 

§  4.  In  the  seventh  chapter,  Dr.  Tully  quotes  an  argu-  p.  57. 
ment    of  mine   from    the    Harmony,    w^hich   is    as   foUows.  Diss.  ü.  c 
"  In  whatever   sense    St.  Paul  rejects   ritual   and   external     '-J,^ 
works   as  not  necessary,  in  that  sense  he   admits  spiritual 
and   internal   works    as   necessary :    but    he   rejects    ritual 
works  as  not  necessary  to  justification :  therefore  he  admits 
spiritual  works  as  necessary  to  justification."     What  is  Dr. 
Tully's  remark  on  this  ?  He  says,  "  How  does  he  prove  this 
false  proposition,  (not  to  say  any  thing  strenger  of  it  ?)  by 
perfect  süence :  as  if  it  were  a  self-intelligible  principle,  or  avTov6-n- 
that  a  streng  assertion  of  it  was  the  same  as  proving  the  "^"^ 
reason  of  it."     Here  is  straightforwardness  indeed !  let  any  Siön 
fair-minded  person  read  the  passage  for  himself  and  he  will 
see  that  I  confirraed  the  proposition  by  very  weighty  argu- 
meuts.    In  the  first  place  I  prove  it  by  most  express  passages 
of  Scripture;  as  Gal.  v.  6;  vi.  15  ;  1  Cor.  vii.  19,  where  the 
Apostle  opposes  '  faith  perfected  by  love,^  '  a  new  creature,^ 
*  the  keeping  of  the  commandraents  of  God,'  to  '  circumcision,' 
and  conscquently  to  the  rest  of  the  IMosaic  rites,  and  affirms 
of  these  that  they  are  of  no  avail  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  is,  that 
they  do  not  profit  for  the  justification  and  salvation  of  man. 
But  what  he  takes  from  these,  (i.  e.  the  '  INIosaic  rites,')  he 
evidently  attributes  to  the  others,  to  '  faith  perfected  by  love,  a 


348  Object  of  Mosaic  ritiial  law. 

s  E  c  T.  iiew  creature^  and  the  keeping  of  tlie  commandments  of  God/ 
: 1_  iiamely,  that  they  are  most  necessary,  and  do  avail  greatly  in 


tlie  justification  and  salvation  of  man.     To  which  passages  I 
add  tlie  follcnäng,  Col.  ii.   11,   12,   13;    Rom.  xi.  28,  29; 
Phil.  iii.  2,  3.     WitK  these  premises  I  lay  doAvn  tlie  argu- 
§4,5.p.l67.  ment   tliat    follows.       Tlien   I    confirm   my   proposition   by 
an    argument   taken   from    tLe   primary   end   or   object    of 
the  Mosaic  ritual  law  :  that  God  with  no  otlier  design  did 
exact  under  so  severe  penalties  tliis  external  righteousness, 
than  to  shew  that  spiritual  righteousness,  to  be  more  clearly 
revealed  in  the    Gospel,   and   shadowed   out   in   that   legal 
righteousness,  was  equally  and    still  more   necessaiy :  that 
as  external  justification,  wliich  Avas  given  by  the  law,  was  the 
shadow  of  the    true  justification    to    be    obtained   through 
Christ,  so  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh,  which  was  required 
for  that  external  justification,  fully  represented  that  circum- 
cision of  the  heart,  (namely  by  faith,  repentance,  and  the  true 
love  of  God,)  which  according  to  the  Gospel  is  absolutely 
necessary  for    obtaining  remission    of  sins   or  justification. 
pro  CO-       What  can  be  plainer  than  this  ?    Lastly,  as  a  finish  to  what  I 
^°'"  ^       had  Said,  I  give  in  a  note  a  remarkable  passage  from  Justin 
p.  320.       Martp-'s  Dialogue  with  Tryplio  :  ''  We,  therefore,  in  the  un- 
fr92^^^^  circumcision  of  our  flesh  believing  in  God  through  Christ, 
189.]         and  having  a  circumcision  profitable  to  us  who  possess  it, 
namely,  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  liope  to  appear  righte- 
Gus  and  well-pleasing  in  the  sight  of  God.    Wliere  he  clearly 
teaches  that  according  to  the  Gospel  not  merely  faith  in  God 
through  Christ,  but  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  shadowed 
forth  in  that  external  circumcision  of  the  Mosaic   law,  is 
absolutely  required  for  any  one  who  would  be  righteous  and 
well-pleasing  before  God.    And  now  let  all  honest  men  judge 
how  fah'ly  Dr.  Tully  could  say  that  I  had  proved  the  proposi- 
tion of  my  argument  by  merc  silence. 
p.  58.  §  5.  Shortly  after,  the  reverend  gentleman  runs  off  into 

certain  logical  subtleties  having  nothing  to  do  with  the 
subject.  IIc  then  returns  to  the  Harmonist  (wliom  he 
now  styles  the  "Dissertator"),  as  follows ;  "But  since  the 
Dissertator  in  liis  postscript  lias  candidly  told  us  that  the 
whole  of  the  Harniony  was  writtcn  when  lic  was  quite  young, 
without   any   mark,    as   it   appears,    of  his    having    looked 


Of  the  Publishing  the  Harmony.  349 

at  it  in  maturer  years,  there  is  no  reason  why  we  shoiüd  SECT 

•  VIII 

not  put  down  this  and  the  like  passages  to  his  youth."     And '- 

not  only  in  this  place,  but  continually  does  he  attack  that 
honest  avowal  of  mine,  (as  he  allows  it  to  be,)  and  in  no  very 
honest  way.  To  these  continual  repetitions  I  make  this  one 
reply.  It  is  true  that  I  wrote  the  Harmony  when  I  was 
about  seven  and  twenty :  but  it  is  very  far  from  the  truth  to 
say  that  I  pubhshed  it  without  looking  it  over  in  maturer 
years.  For  several  years  elapsed  between  its  completion  and 
its  pubHcation;  in  which  interval  I  not  only  often  read  it 
over  myself,  but  gave  it  to  my  more  learned  friends  to  censure 
it  as  they  pleased,  and  in  their  hands  it  remained  a  long  time. 
At  length  I  submitted  these  Dissertations  to  the  examination 
of  a  Right  Reverend  Prelate  ^,  WiUiam,  Bishop  of  Gloucester, 
of  blessed  memory.  The  reader  may  learn  what  his  opi- 
nion  of  them  was  from  my  dedicatory  epistle  to  him,  where 
with  the  greatest  truth,  (and  if  not,  I  should  be  the  most 
barefaced  man  alive,)  I  thus  addressed  the  learned  Prelate. 
"  The  several  chapters  of  each  Dissertation  were  perused  by 
you,  (and  that  too,  not  without  care,)  your  patience  over- 
coming  their  tediousness;  when  read,  you  gave  them  your 
sanction,  and  what  is  more,  with  your  accustomed  kindness, 
towards  myself  and  all  I  do,  adorned  them  with  your  praise." 
I  repeat,  and  I  appeal  to  God  and  man  as  my  witnesses, 
that  I  wrote  this  with  the  greatest  sincerity.  And  I  say  so 
the  more  readily,  because  INIr.  Truman,  in  the  end  of  his 
book  against  me,  says  that  he  suspects  I  forged  these  com- 
mendations  in  order  to  gaiu  credit  for  my  doctriues  by  the 
approval  of  so  great  a  Bishop  and  such  a  learned  writer.  I 
cannot  teil  indeed  what  must  have  been  his  disposition  who 
could  cherish  within  him  so  foul  and  malicious  a  suspicion 
of  a  man  of  whose  fame  he  knew  no  ill,  and  of  a  Di\dne  and 
Priest  of  the  Church  too;  and  in  addition  to  this,  did  not 
blusli  to  publish  such  a  suspicion  to  the  world.  But  since 
he  has  gone  the  way  of  all,  I  forbear  to  say  more  of  him. 
But  to  return :  when  I  was  in  my  forty-second  year,  I  read 
the  Harmony  over  and  over  again  with  much  care,  having 
laid  aside,  as  I  liope,  all  self-conceit,  and  ccrtainly  having 
ofFered  my  prayers  to  the  Lord,  that  He  would  be  pleased  to 

<l  [Nichnlson.] 


350  Authoi^'s  opinion  qf  the  Harmony. 

s  E  c  T.  enlighten  my  mind  with  His  heavenly  light,  and  to  shew  me 
all  the  errors  I  had  fallen  into  contrary  to  the  truth ;  and  I 


then  solemnly  vowed  and  promised  openly  and  publicly 
to  renounce,  in  the  presence  of  the  Chui'ch,  such  errors, 
"Nvhen  made  known  to  me,  to  the  sacrifice  of  my  reputation. 
And  now,  if  the  reader  wishes  to  know  what  was  my  own 
opinion  after  such  a  serious  and  accurate  examination  of  my 
work,  I  say  most  candidly,  tliat  I  saw  more  fuUy  that  there 
were  sorae  points  in  it  which  raight  have  been  stated  with 
greater  perspicuity  and  completeness,  which  I  had  partially 
Seen  when  it  was  first  published,  and  hence  that  avowal  in 
the  PostScript  which  Dr.  Tully  attacks  so  often  and  so  un- 
kindly;  and  this  deficiency  I  have  eudeavoured  to  make  up 
as  much  as  possible  in  the  Examination  of  the  Censure.  I 
saw  also  that  my  Interpretation  of  one  or  two  of  the  more 
difficult  passages  in  St.  Paul's  writings  might  admit  of 
doubts,  though  a  more  sure  explanation  of  them  has  not  jet 
occurred  to  me.  But  as  far  as  regards  the  main  doctrine  of 
man's  justification,  which  I  had  to  defend,  and  the  meaning 
of  the  Apostles  St.  Paul  and  St.  James,  whose  teaching  I 
had  undertaken  to  reconcile,  I  feel  most  persuaded  that  I 
have  not  erred  from  the  truth,  or  from  Catholic  teaching. 
As  for  him  who  with  so  much  pomposity  is  for  ever  attack- 
ing  the  youth  of  the  Harmonist  I  would  that  he  had  not 
written  in  advanced  years  that  which  accords  so  httle  with 
their  sobriety. 

p.  59.  §  6.  In   the    same    chapter,  Dr.  Tully  asserts    that   the 

Harmonist  makes  the  Avhole  weight  of  his  cause  depend 
on  this  foundation :  namely,  that  the  works  which  St.  Paul 
excludes  are  only  those  which  are  performed  without  the 
gracc  of  the  Gospel  by  the  aid  of  the  natural  or  Mosaic  law. 
And  to  prove  this,  he  quotes  the  passage  from  my  second 
Dissertation,  xii.  2.  p.  142;  but  if  the  reader  will  refer  to 
that  passage  he  will  see  that  my  meaning  is  far  different : 
my  Avords  are :  "  Whoever  thoroughly  understands  what  we 
have   advanced   will   easily  perceive   that  the  works   which 

simpiiciter  St.  Paul  simply  excludes  from  justification  are  only  those 
which  are  performed  without  the  grace  of  the  Gospel  by  the 
aid  of  the  natural  or  Mosaic  law."  So  that  Dr.  Tully,  as  is 
his  custom,  omits  tlie  word  simply,  and  yet  in  the  headings 


Sad  ivant  ofhonesty  in  the  Doctor.  351 

of  tlie  cliapter,  I  bad  piit  tliat  worcl  in  Greek  in  order  to  s  E  c  T. 

draw  tlie  reader^s  attention  especially  to  it.     Of  coiu'se  I — 

grant  tliat  St.  Paul  excludes  from  justification  aU  works,  even 
those  proceeding  from  grace  'in  a  certain  sense/  namely,  so  kutüti 
far  as  to  take  away  fi'om  tliem  all  merit  of  justification :  but 
I  assert  most  plainly  tbat   only  tbat  external,  buman,  and 
carnal  rigbteousness,  prescribed  by  tbe  letter  of  tbe  Mosaic 
and  consequently  by  tbe  natural  law,  and  wbich  can  be  per- 
formed  witbout  tbe  special  grace  of  tbe  Gospel, — I  say  tbat 
tbis  alone  is  excluded  by  bim  from  justification,  '  simply  and  aw\ws 
entirely/  as  in  no  way  necessary  or   profitable.     We   may  simplici- 
refer  tbe  reader  also  to  wbat  bas  been  said  in  our  Examen, 
in  tbe  Answer  to  Stricture  XX.  1.  p.  200. 

§  7.  Again  in  tbe  same  cbapter,  Dr.  Tully  quotes  p-  GO. 
from  tbe  Harmony  tbe  following  passage  as  mine :  "Tbe  ll.Diss.x. 
law  of  jNIoses,  by  containing  only  temporal  promises  and  '  ^" 
tbreatenings,  was  'of  itself  inclined  to  produce  in  men  a 
meau  and  sordid  disposition,  entirely  foreign  to  true  and 
genuine  piety."  And  tben  be  tbus  exclaims  upon  it :  "  Wbat 
a  saying  !  unwortby  to  be  said  or  beard  by  a  Cbristian.  God 
gave  His  people  a  law  'of  itself^  inclined  (not  tbrougb 
accident  or  buraan  frailty)  to  lead  men  from  God,"  &c. 
Sball  we  call  tbis  divinity  ?  surely  it  is  more  "  dreadful  tban 
all  tbe  Calviuism  tbey  talk  of."  I  am  really  quite  asbamed 
and  grieved  to  bave  to  notice  so  often  tbe  want  of  bonesty 
sbewn  b}^  tbe  Doctor,  in  quoting  my  words.  Here  be  attri- 
butes  tbe  words  "of  itself"  to  me,  and  tbat  tbe  reader  may 
bave  no  doubt  about  it,  takes  care  to  bave  tbem  printed  in 
large  letters.  And  yet  be  bas  added  tbese  words  'of  itself 
out  of  bis  own  bead,  as  any  one  may  see  wbo  wiU  look  to  tbe 
passage.  How  unwortby  of  a  Cbristian,  not  to  say  of  a 
divine,  is  tbis  disbonesty  ?  sball  we  call  tbis  straigbtforward- 
ness?  But  wbat  I  really  said,  \'iz.  tbat  tbe  law  of  ^Moses 
regarded  by  itself,  and  according  to  tbe  letter,  as  tbe  carnal 
Jews  regarded  it,  from  tbe  very  fact  of  its  promises  and 
tbreatenings  being  only  temporal,  and  its  precepts  exteraal 
and  carnal,  was  inclined  to  produce  in  men  a  mean  and 
sordid  mind  and  disposition  &c.,  tbis  I  bave  abujidantly 
sbewn  to  be  botb  barmless,  true,  and  certain,  as  also  agree- 
able  witb  tbe  teaching  botb  of  ancient  divines,  and  also  of 


352  Dr.  TuUy^s  attacks  continual,  but  in  vain. 

SECT.  the  inspired  writers  themselves,  in  my  Examination  of  the 
_ '—  Censure,  in  the  Answer  to  Stricture  XXII,  whither  I  refer  tlie 


reader.  But  for  what  purpose  is  tliis  mention  of  Calvinism  ? 
Forsooth  tliis  Calvinism  is  a  veiy  tender  subject  with  the 
Doctorj  and  he  is  much  afraid  for  it,  from  those  innovators 
as  he  styles  them,  and  not  without  reason.  But  although 
Dr.  Tully  has  given  us  a  faii'  opportunity  for  disclosing  the 
dreadful  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  we  are  unwiUing  at  this  time 
to  moot  the  question :  nor  is  it  necessary,  since  all  fair 
niinds  must  perceive  how  shocking  Calvinism  is.  As  for 
Dr.  Tully^s  lengthy  arguments  in  this  chapter  against  the 
Hai'mouist,  touching  the  absence  of  the  promise  of  eternal 
»  life  in  the  Mosaie  law,  the  reader  will  see  that  they  liave 
nothing  at  all  to  do  with  the  subject,  if  he  refers  to  the 

Answersto  Examen. 

xvii/^^       §  ^-  ^^  chapter  eight,  a  very  long  one,  Bellarmine  and  the 

XIX,  and  "Aphorist"   are    chastised  :    not   a  word  is  said  about  the 
XXI 

Harmonist.     My  own  opinion  of  the  imputation  of  Christ's 

Answer  to  righteousness    is    explained    at    length     in    the    Examen. 

XI.  In   the   ninth    chapter,  Dr.  Tully  returns   to   the    Harmo- 

nist, and  proposes  certain  of  his  arguments  to  be  solved : 
but  the  reader  will  see  how  wishy-washy  his  Solutions  are, 

II.  Diss.    by  referring  to  the  Harmony.     In  the  tenth  chapter,  the 

iv,  8   J)  .  .  S^  , 

p'eo—ös.  Harmonist  again  has  the  privilege  of  being  left  alone.  To 
Dr.  Tully's  arguments  on  the  nature  of  justifying  faith,  I 
make  the  same  answer  as  I  have  done  at  length  on  the  same 

Answer  to  subject  in  the  Examen. 

XIII.  §  9.   In  the  eleventh  chapter  the  Harmonist  is  again  and 

again  attacked  by  the  way :  but  in  vain,  as  w  ill  be  seen  by 
any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  what  I  have 
written  with  Dr.  Tully's  work.  With  regard  to  the  object 
of  the  wliole  of  this  chapter,  in  whicli  the  reverend  gentleman 
endeavours  to  prove  that  my  teaching  on  the  point  of  justifi- 
cation  agrees  very  nicely  with  that  of  the  Papists,  I  make  the 
following  few  remarks  by  way  of  answer.  I  have  ab-eady 
shewn  that  the  sum  of  my  teaching  concerning  man's  justifi- 
cation  is  as  foUows  :  No  one  under  the  Gospel  covenant,  which 
lias  becn  procured  and  ratified  by  the  sole  meritorious  out- 
pouring  of  the  Blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  can  possibly  obtain  re- 
mission  of  sins  or  justification  without  faith  and  repentance; 


Roman  CathoHc  doctrine  ofjustißcation.  353 

and  Avithout  tlie  fruits  of  faith  and  repentance,  no  one  can  s  e  C  T. 

possibly  preserve  liis  justification.     If  the  Papists  hold  no LLi" 

other  doctrine  on  this  point,  we  may  seriously  congratulate 
them  on  their  orthodoxy,  as  far  as  it  goes,  and  on  their 
agreement  with  Scripture  and  the  Church  Catholic^  as  well 
as  with  our  own  and  the  reformed  Chnrehes.  We  neither 
like  nor  seek  for  unnecessary  disagreements  ;  inasrauch  as 
we  know  füll  well  that  there  are  already  too  many  chief 
points  in  Christian  doctrine  on  which  the  Papists  disagree 
most  widely,  not  only  with  us^  but  with  the  Apostles^  and 
Doctors  of  the  primitive  Church.  Indeed,  Field  has  proved  Appenciix 
most  excellently  and  at  great  length,  how  fully  we  agree  JJ,  ji',g"' 
with  the  more  sound  amongst  the  Roman  divines,  who  wrote  Church. 

_  eil.    ^     011 

either  before  or  after  the  Council  of  Trent^  on  the  subject  of  justTiica- 
justification.     And  if  Dr.  Tully  had  ever  read  with  attention  ^^°"- 
the  Dissertation  of  that  great  di\dne,  he  would  certainly  have 
omitted  the  whole  of  his  eleventh  chapter.  There  are  certainly 
several  Roman  Catholic  divines,  and   Bellarmine   amongst 
them,  who  have  not  hesitated  to  attribute  the  merit  of  '  con-  ex  con- 
dignity'  to  good  works  in  procuring  at  least  our  second  justi-   '^"° 
fication.     Does  Dr.  Tully  mean  to  assert  that  we  approach 
this  blasphemy  ?  indeed  he  does  :  how  unfairly,  we  will  pre- 
sently  shew  in  this  same  section.     But  first,  I  demand  how 
and  with  what  arguments  does  he  prove  this  heavy  accusa- 
tion?  he  refers  to  the  sixth  chapter  of  his  book,  where  he  Just.Paul. 
boasts  that  he  has  proved  this  conclusion  of  the  merit  ofP"^^*" 
condignity  to  be  but  too  consequent  (as  he  expresses  him- 
self)  upon  our  principles.     But  what  is  it  he  endeavours  to 
prove  there?  namely,  that  "to  be  justified  by  works,  or  on 
account  of  works,  or  by  the  merit  of  works,  mean  all  one  and 
the  same  thing."     Where  he  either  argues  extremely  sophis- 
tically,  or  eise  his  meaning  must  be,  that  to  be  justified  by 
works,  as  the  necessary  'condition'  on  our  part,  to  be  per- 
formed  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  to  be  justified  by  works  as 
'the  meritorious  causes^  of  our  justification,  mean  the  same  iVoSui/a- 
thing.     But  who  in  his  senses  can  assert  this  ?  and  yet  the  ''"'"'^'' 
whole  of  the  Doctor's  argument  turns  on  this  point.     But  if 
there  is  still  need  of  authority  on  a  point  that  must  be  quite 
clear  to  all  persons  who  are  not  destitute  of  common  scnse, 
let  US  hear  that  famous  passage  of  Davenant,  already  quoted 

BULL.  A    a 


354  Dr.  Tulhj  proved  to  he  papistical. 

s  E  c  T.  at  lenffth  in  the  Harmony  :  "  And  here  it  is  to  be  observed," 

VIII. 


says  'he,  "  tliat  wlien  we  say  any  thing  is  necessary  for  obtain- 
ri"Meous-  ^^S  ^^^^  °^'  tbat,  from  the  very  force  of  the  words,  the  neces- 
ness,  eil.  sity  of  causality  is  not  meant,  but  of  order.  Therefore, 
although  I  grant  the  following  statement,  '  good  works  are 
necessary  for  justification/  it  cannot  be  immediately  inferred 
that  they  are  necessary  as  causes,  much  less  as  meritorious 
causes.  For  instance,  if  I  say  it  is  necessary  for  obtaining 
the  rank  of  a  knight  that  a  man  should  go  to  court^  and  go 
down  on  his  knees  before  the  king,  it  would  be  folly  to  infer 
from  thence  that  the  going  to  court  or  the  genuflexion  were 
the  meritorious  causes  of  his  obtaining  this  honour.  And 
thus  we  must  look  upon  all  those  works  which  are  said  to  be 
necessary  on  our  part  for  justification." 

§  10.  But  supposing  this  charge  to  fall  back  upon  the 
Doctor  ?  what  if  we  were  to  shew  that  Dr.  Tully's  doctrine 
of  justification  agrees  entirely  with  that  of  the  Papists,  espe- 
cially  in  that  point  (as  he  somewhere  eise  says)  where  it  is 
most  papistical :  it  would  not  be  very  hard  to  prove  this. 
Some   of  the  Papists   teach   (and  they  certainly  have  the 
Council     divines  of  Trent  to  lead  them  in  their  error)  that  true  con- 
SessT^'c.  trition  for  sin  is  not  absolutely  necessary  for  obtaining  re- 
4. 011  coii-  mission   of  sins   or  justification :  but  that  attrition  only  in 
many  cases  is  sufficient.     Now  is  not  Dr.  Tully's  teaching 
Just.  Paul,  the  same?  surely  it  is,  for  he  acknowledges  that  some  kind 
^'     '     '  of  repentance  indeed  is  necessarily  required  for  man's  justifi- 
cation,  but  most  entirely  denies  that  true  repentance  or  con- 
trition  must  precede  justification.     In  fact,  in  this  point  Dr. 
Tully's  view  is  more  lax  and  worse  than  that  of  the  Papists ; 
for  they  merely  assert  that  attrition  only  is  in  many  cases 
sufficient ;  he,  that  contrition  is  not  necessarily  requisite  in 
any   one   for  justification :    they,   beside   attrition,   require 
confession  and  some  kind  of  satisfaction ;    he  warmly  con- 
tends  that  man  can  obtain  justification  by  attrition  alone, 
assisted  by  some  sort  of  faith,  I  know  not  what,  but  cer- 
tainly not  revealed  to  us  in  the  Gospel.     But  enough  on  this 
point. 

§  11.  In  the  twelfth  or  last  chapter,  the  reconciliation  of 
St.  Paul  and  St.  James  is  treated  of,  where  the  Harmonist  is 
attacked  on  all  sides.     And  here  I  must  beg  the  reader  to 


His  trifling  evasions  exposed.  355 

read  seriously  and  impartially  the  first  and  second  chapters  s  E  C  T. 
of  the  second  Dissertation,  as  also  Examen  Censurse,  Answer — 


to  Stricture  XV.  6 — 8,  and  lie  will  see  to  wliat  little  pm-pose 
Dr.  Tully  lias  devoted  his  time  and  labour.     There  are,  ho^y- 
ever,  certain  thiugs  which  may  not  be  passed  over.     The 
author  of  the  Harmony  had  proved  that  St.  James  denies  not  II.  Diss. 
only  that  a  false  faith  but  that  even  a  true  faith  has  the  sole  "'  '  ^" 
Office  of  justifying;  and  by  this  argument  amongst  others : 
"  That  faith  Avhich  was  in  Abraham  undoubtedly  was  a  true 
faith,  and  not  a  mere  resemblance;  but  this  very  faith  of 
Abraham  could  not  justify  him  without  works,  for  it  is  said, 
'  Was  not  Abraham  our  father  justified  by  works.' "     Listen  jas.  2. 21. 
to  Dr.  Tully^s  answer  to  this  argument :  "  How  could  it  es-  jnrtPaul. 
cape  him,"  says  he,  "  that  his  opponents  deny  this  justifica-  P" 
tion  to  have  been  in  the  sight  of  God  ?     This  then  is  '  beg- 
ging  the  question,'  than  which  there  is  not  a  more  trouble- 
some  kind  of  false  ai'gument;  and  this  is  not  to  argue,  but 
to  trifle  and  waste  good  time  to  ill  purpose."     But  how,  I 
ask,  could  it  escape  Dr.  Tully,  that  before  I   made  use  of 
this  argument  I  had  clearly  proved  in  the  foregoing  chapter 
that  St.  James  is  speaking  of  justification  before  God?  Read, 
read,  I  pray  you,  ye  who  are  lovers  of  the  truth,  the  first 
chapter  of  Diss.  II.  §  4,  and  you  will  acknowledge  that  I  had 
proved  this  very  point  by  five  most  clear  and  certain  argu- 
ments.     But  what  does  Dr.  Tully  say  to  them  ?  not  a  sylla- 
ble :    sui'ely  then  we  may  fairly  retort  upon  him   his   own 
words,  and  say,  "  This  certainly  is  not  to  argue,  but  to  trifle 
and  waste  good  time  to  ill  purpose." 

§  12.    In   the   same   chapter,    Dr.  Tully  seriously  wams  p.  164. 
the   author   of   the   Harmony   as   follows :    "  ]\Ieanwhile   I 
must  seriously  advise  the  dissertator  to  be  reconcilcd  with 
himself,  to  make  peace  at  home.     For  if  justifjang  faith  be 
separable   from   love,    (for   which   he   is   here   warmly  con- 
tending,)  how  can   it  have   united   to   it   the   true  Gospel 
worship   of  God  ?    as   he   himself  has    determined.       How  p.  65. 
does   it  comprehend  the  whole  of  rcligion?      How,  lastly, 
(to  pass  over  other  points,)  is  the  whole  of  Gospel  obedience 
expressed  by  the  word  '  faith  V     What  contradiction  is  all  p.  08,  G9. 
this !"     Now  we  must  seriously  advise  Dr.  Tully  to  have 
for  the  future  a  greater  love  for  truth  and  honesty.     For 

A  a  2 


356  Instance  of  great  dishonesty  and  calumny 

s  E  c  T.  when^  I  ask,  has  tlie  author  of  tlie  Harmony  ever  said  (not  to 
L_  say  warmly  contended)  that  justifyiug  faith  is  separable  from 


love?  Where  has  Dr.  Tully  found  such  an  opinion  of  the 
author?  Perhaps  (to  use  his  own  words)  in  the  archives  of 
Utopia;  for  certainly  you  may  look  through  the  whole 
Harmony  from  beginning  to  end  and  you  will  find  nothing 
Harm.  II.  of  the  kind.  I  do  say,  indeed,  (though  I  do  not  Avarmly  con- 
p.  60.  tend  for  it,  inasmuch  as  I  have  cleai'ly  said  that  it  is  a  ques- 
tion  plainly  irrelevant  to  our  cause,)  that  a  true,  and  in  its 
kind  a  perfect  faith  may  be  found  where  love  is  wanting. 

1  mean,  that  the  single  virtue  of  Christian  faith  is  nothing 
more  than  a  firm  assent  of  the  mind  to  the  Gospel  of  Clmst : 
but  that  whatever  is  added  to  this  assent,  either  in  the  heart 
er  will  of  man,  is  the  effect  of  its  being  made  efl&cacious 
through  the  grace  of  God,  and  belongs  to  the  virtue  of  love : 

Answerto  I  have  proved  this   at   length  in  the  Examen.     Now  Dr. 

Xlll."'^^    Tully  himself,  and   by  far  the   greatest   part   of  reformed 

divines,  acknowledge  with  me  that  this  firm  assent  to  the 

Gospel  may  be  separated  from  love.     But  I  never  said  or 

even  dreamed  that  justifyiug  faith  was  separable  from  love. 

On  the  contrary,  I  am  continually  asserting  that  as  often  as 

justification  and  salvation  are  attributed  in  the  Scriptures 

to  faith,  we  must  not  understand  them  to  mean  faith  as  a 

Single  virtue,  but  faith  in  a  complex  sense,  namely,  faith 

perfected  by  love. 

p.  167,  et       §  13.    Dr.  Tully^s  arguments  in  his  Appendix,  concern- 

^^^*  ing  the   necessity  of  good  works,  which,  however,  are  by 

no  means  necessary  to  justification,  also  of  the  conditions 

required  and  commanded  in  the  Gospel,  and  of  the  difler- 

ence  between  a  right  to  a  thing  and  a  right  in  a  thing : 

Answer  to  all  these  have  been  fully  refuted  in  the  Examen.     Let  the 

viTi^7  ^cader  refer  to  those  passages   and  judge   for   himself.     I 

and  XIV.  caunot,   however,   pass    over   an   instance  of  most   evident 

calumny,  joined  to  downright  dishonesty,  which  occurs  in 

p.  174;  and  I  heartily  wish  that  he  himself  did  not  compel 

me  to  use  such  harsh  expressions :  but  he  there  gives  the 

argumcnt  of  the  Harmonist  in  the  following  words.     "  But 

he  proceeds  from  other  som'ces  in  this  syllogism,  viz.,  from 

2  Thess.  i.  7;  Heb.  vi.  10;  and  2  Tim.  iv.  8.  If  the  reward 
of  eternal  life  be  given  of  justice  to  our  works,  then  we 


e.rposcd :  fulse  testimony  refuted.  357 

gain  by  our  works  a  riglit  to  that  reward  :  but  the  passages  s  E  c  T. 
just  quoted  confirm  this,   tberefore,  &c.     The  same  proofs     ^  ^^^" 


are  also  brought  fonvard  by  Bellarmine^  in  support  of  bis 
merit  of  works^  which  to  me  appears  in  no  way  to  diiFer  from 
this  rigbt  of  our  Harmonist."     Now  who,  I  say,  if  he  could 
depend  on  the  Doctor's  integrity  and  fairness,  would  not  con- 
fidently  declare  that  the  writer  of  the  Harmony  was,  at  least 
in  this  article  of  justification,  a  downright  Papist :  and  not 
only  thatj  but  that  he  entirely  agreed  with  those  among 
thera  who  are  more  bigoted  in  supporting  the  merit  of  con- 
dignity  ?     But  again  am  I  compelled  to  exclaim,  Alas !  for 
the  man's  honesty  !     I  beseech  the  reader  to  look  at  the 
passage   in   the   Harmony  which   Dr.  Tully  here  perverts,  l.  Diss.  vi. 
where  hanng  quoted  the  celebrated  passage  from  the  Reve-  g^"  ^'     ' 
lations,  I  subjoin  the  following  remarks.     "  To  this  may  be  eh.  22. 14. 
added,  all  those  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  in  which  7.  Hg^'^'. 
eternal  life  is  clearly  declared  to  be  given  bv  the  Almightv  10 ;  2Tiin. 

"  4   8. 

of  His  justice  to  our  works.  From  these  texts  we  may 
thus  argue.  If  the  reward  of  eternal  life  is  due  of  right 
to  our  works,  then  from  our  works  we  obtain  a  right  to 
that  reward :  (such  a  right  certainly  as  hath  its  only 
foundation  in  the  gracious  covenant  of  God,  thron gh 
Christ.)  The  terms  are  relative  and  correlative :  to  whom 
a  reward  is  given  of  right,  he  hath  a  right  to  that  re- 
ward necessarily,  and  the  converse.^^  Now  Dr.  Tully  has 
omitted  these  words;  "such  a  right  certainly  as  hath  its  only 
foundation  in  the  gracious  covenant  of  God,  through  Christ.'' 
Perhaps  he  supposed  he  might  justly  pass  them  over,  because 
they  were  written  in  a  parenthesis.  Certainly  he  might,  if 
Dr.  Tully  professed  to  be  merely  a  rhetorician  or  a  gram- 
marian,  and  not  to  be  a  Christian,  not  a  theologian,  not  a 
doctor  of  divinity.  In  truth,  my  meaning  and  opinion  in 
this  argument  might  be  so  clearly  understood  from  this 
parenthesis,  that  there  could  be  no  room  for  this  sort  of 
cavilling.  Nor  is  it  any  excuse  for  him,  that  he  aftcrwards 
ackuowledges  that  I  say  the  right  which  our  good  works 
have  to  eternal  life  hath  its  only  foundation  in  the  gracious 
covenant  of  God  through  Christ.  For  he  does  not  bring 
forward  this  statemeut  of  mine  at  once  in  its  proper  place, 
but  after  several  remarks  of  his  own,  and  as  it  were  by  the 


358  '  Ri(/ht  to  eternal  life'  explained. 

S  E  c  T.  "svaj^  and  so   separated  from  tlie  parts  of  the  sentence  to 

^  •     which  it  belongedj  that  the  reader  might  easily  be  led  to  be- 

lieve  that  I  had  equally  broiight  forward  this  argument  just 
as  crudely  as  it  is  quoted  by  him,  aud  that  this  soimder 
statemeut  had  been  made  by  me  in  some  other  part,  as  if  I 
had  forgotten  what  I  had  said  before.  In  addition  to  all 
this,  he  has  not  even  here  quoted  my  words  as  they  stand, 
but  has  weakened  the  sentence,  omitting  the  word  '  only,'  on 
which  the  true  uuderstanding  of  Avhat  I  mean  principally 
depends.  However,  forgiAing  him  this  piece  of  dishonesty, 
he  has  still  by  no  meaus  rid  himself  of  the  charge  of  false 
testimony.  He  says  that  the  right  which  the  Harmonist 
attrilnites  to  good  works,  appears  to  him  to  differ  in  nothing 
from  Bellannine^s  notion  of  merit.  Now,  I  ask,  has  he  ever 
read  Bellarmine  on  this  subject,  or  not?  K  he  has,  he 
cannot  possibly  believe  that  I  agree  with  him.  But  if  he 
has  not,  he  is  deciding  veiy  rashly  on  the  comparison  of 
Bellarmine's  opinion  and  my  own,  and  that  too  in  a  very 
serious  matter.  To  make  things  more  clear,  let  us  compare 
Bellarmine^s  teachiug  with  the  Plarmonist^s.  The  Harmo- 
nist, in  that  very  place  Avhicli  Dr.  TuUy  rails  at,  expressly 
teaches  that  the  right  to  eternal  life  Avhicli  must  be  given  to 
our  good  works,  "  is  such  as  hath  its  only  foundation  in  the 
gracious  covenant  of  God,  through  Christ."  And  in  other 
passages  throughout  the  Avhole  work,  he  so  plainly  rejects 
every  notion  of  the  right  or  merit  of  our  good  works  to 
eternal  life,  which  is  not  founded  only  in  the  gracious  promise 
of  the  Gospel,  that  any  one  Avho  has  even  a  grain  of  fairness 
or  modesty  remaining,  would  blush  to  affirm  the  contrary. 
II.  Diss.  Look,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  following  passage  in  the  Har- 
p^'i'y^  '  "mony;  there,  amongst  others,  is  the  foUoAving  statement : 
19Ö.  "Whoevcr  thcn  regards  his  salvation  must  guard  against  that 

calculating  pride,  and  call  not  ^Vlmighty  God  to  account  as  if 
in  any  degree  indebted  to  him.  He  will  remember  that  the 
right  which  the  good  works  of  the  just  have  to  eternal  life, 
is  founded  only  in  the  Gospel  covenant  aud  promise,  the 
som-ce  of  which  covenant  and  promise  is  the  mere  and  won- 
derful  mercy  of  God  the  Fatlier,  through  God  the  Son." 
To  illustrate  this  doctrinc,  I  quotc  several  celebrated  pas- 
sages from  the   ancient  divines.     Lastly,  so  cntircly  do  I 


God  not  to  he  called  our  debtor.  359 

attribute  every  thing  to  tlie  grace  and  mercy  of  God,  and  so  s  E  c  T. 

utterly  do  I  repudiate  all  notion  of  merit  in  our  works,  that '- — 

I  deny  that  God  can,  even  from  His  promise,  be  properly 
called  oiu"  '  debtor/     My  words  are  :  "  Although  even  these  p.  196. 
expressions  are  somewhat  improper,  and  tlierefore  Thomas 
and  tlie  other  schoolmen  preferred  saying  that  God  made 
Himself  a  debtor  by  His  promises,  not  to  us,  but  to  Him- 
self,  i.  e.  to  His  own  determination,  it  being  agreeable  to 
His   truth  that   He    should    perform   His    promises."      It 
may   now   be    seen   what    kind    of    riglit    the    Harmonist 
attributes  to  our  works.     Let  us  now  turn  to  Bellarmine.  [Op.vol.iv. 
In  his  fifth  book  on   Justification^  he  proposes  this  ques-  ^h.  17. 
tion  for   consideration.     "Whether   good  works   are   meri- 
torious  of  condignity  by  reason   of  a   covenant   only  ?    or  ex  con- 
by  reason  of  the  work  only?  or  by  reason  of  both?^^     He   '^"°' 
then    proeeeds    to    determine    this    question,    as    follows : 
"The  view  which  takes  in  somewhat  of  both,  seems  to  me 
more  probable,  and  which  teaches  that  the  good  works  of 
the  just  merit  eternal  life  of  condignity  by  reason  of  the 
covenant   and  the  work  together.     Not  indeed   because    a 
good  work  is  not  proportionate  to  eternal  life  without  a  cove- 
nant or  acceptation :  but  because  God  is  not  bound  to  accept 
a   good  work  for  that   reward,  however   proportionate   and 
equal  it  may  be  to  the  reward,  without  some  intervening 
agreement.     Which  view  we  do  not  doubt  is  agreeable  to 
that  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  &c.     Whence  it  appears  that 
according  to  Bellarmine  (with   whom  Suarez  also   agrees"") 
the  System  of  merit  of  condignity  is  made  up  of  two  things, 
namely,  the  intrinsic  worthiness  of  the  work,  and  the  promise 
of  God  which  is  added  to  it ;  so  that  a  good  work,  according 
as  it  is  performed,  though  it  possesses  a  sufficient  proportion 
or  value,  Avith  respect  to  the  reward,  still  wants  the  promise 
of  God  only  to  produce  Obligation  of  the  justice  by  which  a  obiigatio- 
reward   is   due   to  it.     To   take  the   following  illusti-ation :  ^^^^^^^ 
Suppose  a  person  wislied  to  buy  a  farm  of  another,  aud  had 
offered  him  the  just  and  fair  price  for  it :    the   possessor 


f  "  A  debt  of  fidelity  depcnds  on  the  founded  upon  that,  yet  is  comniensu- 

truth  of  the  promise,  but  the  debt  of  rate  with  and  proportionate  to  works." 

which  we  are  now  speaking,  although  — Suarez  in  3  Thom.  vol.    i.  disp.  4. 

it  requires  a  promise,  and  is  chiefly  sect.  5.  Quod  si,  &c. 


360  Dr.  Tulli/'s  Dissertation  examined. 

s  E  c  T.  would  be  by  no  means  bound  to  give  up  bis  risrht  to  the 

VIII  •  O  ^  C3 

'. —  farm,  witbout  some  free  coveuant  or  agreement  baviug  inter- 


vened  on  bis  own  part.     It  is  but  too  piain  tbat  tbis  is  Bel- 

larmine^s  real  meaning,  as  well  from  tbe  passage  just  quoted. 

as  from  many  otbers  wbicb  continually  occur  in  bis  writings. 

And  one  would  tbink  tbe  Doctor  sbould  feel  asbamed  to  bave 

Said  tbat  Bellarmine's  view  of  merit  differs  in  notbing  fi'om 

tlie  rigbt  wliicb  tbe  Harmonist  gives  to  good  Avorks.     And 

still  more,  to  bave  asserted  (as  be  does  in  tbe  second  cbapter) 

tbat  be  agrees  entirely  witb  tbe  Papists  in  general  on  tbis 

question  of  merit,  not  excepting  even  tbe  most  bigoted  of 

tbem.      For   Bellarmine   (witb   wbom   bowever  Ave   greatly 

differ)  sboAved  mucli  modesty  and  moderation  in  tbis  contro- 

versy,  above  tbe  otber  Papists.     For  tbere  are  not  wanting 

divines  io  tbe  Cburcb  of  Rome,  wbo  confidently  assert  tbat 

tbe  value  and  wortbiness  of  bfe  eternal  is  to  be  ascribed  to 

cur  works  witbout  any  covenant  or  favour  on  God's  part : 

and  consequently  tbat  neitber  the  merits  of  Cbrist,  nor  tbe 

promise  of  God,  nor  any  otber  agreement  or  favour,  bas  any 

tbiug  to  do  witb  tbe  System  of  merit.     For  instance,  tbis 

opinion  is  warmly   and  opeuly   defended  by  Vasques,   and 

Inl.2se.    Bellarmine  brings   forward  Cajetan,    Dominic  a   Soto^  aud 

Disp.  214.  otbers,  as  supporters  of  tbe  same  opiuion. 
eh.  4. 


SECTION  IX. 

ON  THE  DISSERTATION  ON  THE  MEANING  OF 
ST.  PAUL,  ROM.  vii.  14. 

§  1.  It  remains  for  us  to  exaraine  more  minutely  Dr.  TuUy's 

Dissertation^  on  tbe  raeaning  of  St.  Paul,  Rom.  vii.  14.  et  seq. 

Here  be  boasts  exceedingly  of  bis  doings,  and  as  usual  assigns 

to  bimsclf  tbe  prize.    But  tbe  proverb  be  uses  may,  we  tbink, 

1  Kings     be  deservedly  applied  in  return  to  bimsclf:    "Let  not  bim 

tbat  girdetb  on  bis  barness  boast  bimself  as  be  tbat  putteth 

Ditsert.     it  ofP."     At  tbe  vcry  beginuiug  of  tbis  Dissertation,  be  taxes 

^'   '  tbe  autbor   of  tbe   Harmony  witb    great    presumptiou,  for 

daring  to  say  tbat  tbat  view  wbicli  makes  St.  Paul  in  Rom.  vii. 

•  [In  wliich  it  is  sliewn  that  St.  Paul       nnd  not  in  the  person  of  one  still  un- 
is   spcaking  of  hinisclf  as  regcncratt.',      legentralc.J 


His  three  assertions  ayainst  the  Harmonist.  361 

from  ver.  14,  to  be  speaking  of  himself,  is  füll  not  only  of  s  E  c  T. 
great  discrepancies,  but  of  actual  absurdities.     But  let  a  fair- 


minded  person  judge  wliether  the  writer  of  the  Harmony  has 
Said  any  thing  here  which  he  has  not  plainly  proved. 

§  2.  In  Order  to  prejudice  the  unlearned  agaiust  my  asser- 
tion,  he  thus  proceeds :  "  Now  in  the  first  place,  I  wish  he  p- 1,  2. 
would  seriously  consider  (if  indeed  he  is  aware  of  it,  which  I 
suppose  he  is)  how  many  persons  this  invidious  assertion 
assails,  For  siipposing  he  has  one  or  two  of  his  new  divines 
(be  they  ever  so  good)  and  some  perhaps  of  the  ancients  on 
his  side ;  does  it  follow  from  this  that  all  the  rest,  so  many, 
and  at  least  equal  to  the  others  in  learning,  good  sense,  and 
piety,  shoidd  be  so  very  weak  in  intellect,  that  their  inter- 
pretations  are  füll  of  palpable  absurdities?"  Presently  he 
adds,  "I  greatly  suspect  that  amongst  the  supporters  of  these 
absurdities,  you  may  find  all  the  Fathers,  especially  the 
Latin,  after  care  and  keen  search,  were  called  into  action  ay-xivoiw 
owing  to  the  heresy  of  Pelagius,  and  Hilary  may  be  added 
to  them  before  Pelagius."  In  fact  he  here  intended  to 
persuade  the  credulous  reader,  1.  That  the  author  of  the 
Harmony  had  not  very  many  ancient  divines  on  his  side, 
whence  he  afterwards  asserts  that  the  far  greater  number  of  p.  5. 
holy  and  leai'ned  doctors  of  the  Church  disagreed  witli  him. 
2.  That  all  the  Fathers  after  Pelagius,  were  nearly,  if  not 
entirely,  opposed  to  the  Harmonist.  3.  That  only  one  or 
two  new  divines  of  eminence  favoured  his  opinion.  And 
now  we  must  shew  how  utterly  falsa  all  this  is. 

§  3.  With  regard  to  the  first  point,  I  assert,  in  Opposition 
to   the   Doctor,  that  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  more 
ancient  Fathers  approve  of  the  Interpretation  which  I  am 
defending.     The  learned  and  tnistworthy  G.  Vossius  adduces  Hist.  of 
in    Support  of  it  Irenseus,  liook  iii.  eh.  22  :    TertuUian  on  ^^^^^'  ?' 

■*•  *■  ■"  '  11.  part  1. 

Chastity,  eh.  17;    Macarius,  Hom.  I. ;  Basil  on  Ps.  i. ;   and  thes.  2.  p. 
Exhortation  on  Baptism,  the  title  of  which  is,  "That  they  [ch."2o.§?. 
are  to  be  advised  and  instructed  who  come  to  Baptism ;"  P- 21  ^^l 
Cyril  agaiust  Julian,  book  iii.  and  Epistle  to  Successus,  and 
book  i.  De  recta  Fide  ad  Reginas ;  also  Origen,  Chrysostom, 
Theodoret,   the  writer   of  the   commentaries   attributed   to 
Ambrose,  and  Theophylact  in  his  notes  on  Rom.  vii.     Others 
of  no  less  credit  bring  forward  Cyprian,  or  another  ancient 


362  Testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria, 

s  E  C  T.  writer  in  the  prolocruc  on  thc  Cardinal  Works  of  Christ, 
Paulinus'  second  Epistle  to  Sülpitius  Scverus,  Damasccnus, 


On  Rom.  on  Ortliodox  Faitli,  iv.  23.     Estius,  who  is  opposcd  to  our 

7    14. 

*  ■  interpretation,  adds,  of  the  Grccks,  Q<]cumcnius,  and  of  thc 
Discuss.  Latins,  Sedulius :  to  whom  Maximus  is  addcd  by  Grotius. 
^'  '  To  crown  all,  I  will  add  out  of  my  own  collccting  thc  tcsti- 
monics  of  six  ancicnt  doctors,  wliich,  as  far  as  I  know, 
others  have  not  before  observcd.  One  of  thcsc  is  thc  oldest 
of  all :  and  another  next  to  the  oldest :  all  of  thcm  arc 
sufficiently  ancicnt  and  well  known  Avritcrs  in  thc  Church  of 
Christ, 
p.  5on.  ed.  §  4.  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  Epistle  to  Zenas  and  Serenus. 
iansioS).  «fj^Qj,  ^yg  j^j,g  'altogether'  carnal,  and  in  us  dwellcth  no  good 
thing.  Wherefore  we  must  call  in  the  physician  to  heal  us, 
And  he  that  is  thus  mindcd,  shall  be  healed,  and  cscape 
disease.^'  Evcry  one  must  see  that  the  blcsscd  Martyr  is 
refcrring  to  that  passagc  of  St.  Paul,  Rom.  vii. ;  for  the  very 
words  almost  of  the  eighteenth  verse  of  that  chapter  arc 
quotcd,  and  the  Avords  of  the  foui'tecnth  verse,  '  I  am  carnal,' 
arc  expressed  by  a  clcar  paraphrasc.  Nor  is  it  less  piain 
that  Justin  applies  the  Apostle's  words  to  man  unregenerate, 
that  is,  as  without  the  state  of  grace  and  salvation.  For 
those  words  of  thc  Apostle,  '  I  am  carnaV  are  paraphrased 
and  explained  by  him  by,  'we  are  wholly,  entirely,  altogether* 
carnal,^  for  that  is  the  force  of  the  word  aK/Mrjv.  So  Isocrates 
to  Dcraonicus,  aKfjbrjv  ^iKocro^et';,  'you  arc  a  regulär^  (or 
entirely  a)  '  philosopher.'  Who  would  imagine  that  thcsc 
words  wcre  said  of  man,  regenerated  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 
Then  he  expressly  speaks  of  those  who  have  not  yet  callcd  in 
Christ  the  Physician,  that  is,  those  who  are  without  Christ. 
Lastly,  he  speaks  of  the  disease  and  vice  from  which  they 
are  liberated  who  have  callcd  in  Christ  as  their  physician. 
It  is  clear  then  that  Justin  Martyr,  who  livcd  immediately 
after  the  Apostles,  entirely  agreed  with  our  Interpretation. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  a  very  learned  doctor  in  the 
Church,  who  lived  in  the  second  Century,  and  was  a  pupil 
Strom,  lii).  of  the  grcat  Pantajnus,  after  quoting  the  words  of  Plato, 
fp  M^f ^   "The   soul   of  the    philosopher   thinks   but   very   littlc   of 

519.] 

'  [This   is  a  mistake,   as   the  word      mucli  more  favourable  to  his  geiieral 
means  only  'still;'  which  is  however      argument.] 


Marcus  Eremita,  Dorotheus,  St.  Pacian,  363 

the  body,  and  seeks  to  be  rid  of  it,  and  to  be  alone/^  adds^  s  E  c  T. 
'*and    does  lie  not  somewhat    agree  with   the   divine  Apo-  — — — 
stle,  when  he  says,  '  O  wretched  man  that  I  am !  who  shall 
deliver  me  from  tlie  body  of  this  death/'  unless  perchance 
their  consent  Tvho  are  drawn  iuto  sin  is  figuratively  called 
by   him    the   body  of  death?"     He   is    enquiring   whether 
this  passage  of  St.  Paul  at  all  agrees  with  Plato^s  opinion, 
and  he  corrects  the  mistake,  and  gives  the  Catholic  exposi- 
tion :   viz.  '  the  body  of  death/  is  there  figuratively  said  of 
their  consent  who  are  drawn  into  sin,  by  which  words  the 
State  of  an  unregenerate  and  even  a  wicked  man,  is  clearly 
marked.     Besides,  he   says  'their  consent/  not  'bis  own/ 
plainly  indicating  that  the  Apostle  is  speaking  in  the  person 
of  others.     Mai'cus  Eremita,  on  Baptism,  thus  gives  a  ques-  Biblioth. 
tion  that  some  had  asked.    "Did  not  Paul  therefore  sin  after  ^^^o'i'gii' 
he  had  been  baptized,  bccause  he  was  willingly  distracted?  Paris  1 62  k 
for  he  says,  '  For  I  see  another  law  in  my  members,  warring 
against  the  law  of  my  mind/"     He  answers  this  question 
by  saying,  "In  this  way  the  evil-minded  peiTcrt  the  rest  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  crr ;  for  look  at  the  former  part  of  this 
chapter,  and  you  will  find  that  St.  Paul  is  not  speaking  of 
himself  after  Baptism,  but  in  the  person  of  the  unbelie\'ing 
Jews,  persuading  them   that  without   the  grace   of  Christ 
which  is  given  in  baptism,  it  is  impossible  to  overcome  sin." 
Where  he  classes  those  who  explain  this  passage  otherwise, 
with  evil-minded  pcople  who  pervert  the  Holy  Scriptures.  So 
Dorotheus :  "  The  Son  of  God  having  become  man,  renewed  Doctrina  ?. 
fallen  man,  He  freed  him  that  was  enslaved  to  sin,  and  over-  |^^'''"*f''- 

'  '  1  atr.  toin. 

come  by  its  power.  For  man  was  di'agged  by  \'iolence  and  i-  p-  7öo. 
tyranny  by  the  euemy  under  its  yoke,  and  almost  they  who 
wished  not  to  sin,  sinned  by  force,  as  saith  the  Apostle  of  him- 
self in  our  person ;  'For  the  good  that  I  would,  I  do  not :  but 
the  evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do.^  God  then  bccoming 
man  for  our  sake,  liberated  man  from  the  tyranny  of  the 
enemy."  What  follows  may  well  be  read.  St.  Pacian,  Bishop, 
in  a  Sermon  on  Baptism  :  "What  thcu  is  man^s  liope?  Avith-  Biblioth. 
out  the  law  he  perished  because  he  could  not  see  sin,  and  ?.^*'"''°'"- 

^  '  111.  p.  /  6. 

under  the  law  also,  because  he  went  against  that  which  he  [Bibi.Patr. 
did  see.     Who  can  free  him  from  this  death  ?  Hear  the  Apo-  Vj^lö^^^^'P' 

^        1618.  vol. 

stle  :  'O  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who  shall  deliver  me  from  iv.p.2t7.] 


364  Ennodius.     Twenty-tivo  Fathers 

s  E  c  T.  the  body  of  tliis  death  ?  I  thank  God  (he  says)  through  Jesus 
— — —  Christ  our  Lord/"  Ennodius  in  an  Epistle  to  Constantine  : 
ü.^Epist'''  " '  Fo^  to  Avill  is  present  with  me :  but  how  to  perform  that 
19.  Bibl.  -v^hicli  is  good  I  find  not.'  What  is  this  but  saying,  I  know 
XV.  p.  2W.  how  to  choose  the  right  way :  but  uuless  supernatural  grace 
[vol.  v-i.  p.  jissjg^  jQg   j  shall  be  w-earv  while  I  walk  thereon  V 

20-3.  ed.  ' 

1618.]  §  5.  "\Ye  have  brought  forward  two-and-twenty  approved 

doctors  of  the  Church  to  support  our  Aiew  of  this  passage : 
and  now  then  let  Dr.  Tully  (to  use  liis  own  words)  '  muster 
and  review'  bis  forces,  and  compare  them  with  ours.     Out 
of  all  the  Fathers  who  flourished  in  the  three  first  centuries, 
and  whose  writings  are  now  extant,  there  is  only  one,  ]\Ie- 
thodiuSj  who  lived   in  the   end   of  the    third^  who  favours 
Dr.  Tully's  Interpretation,   though  he  does   not   bring  him 
forward.     And  yet  even  bis  exposition  is  very  different  to 
Discuss.p.  theirs   whom    Dr.  Tully   follows,   as  Grotius   has    shewn    at 
fvol  tir     length.     So  that  we  are  able  to  assert  most  plainly  that  our 
Op.  p.       Interpretation  of  this  passage  of  St.  Paul  was  commonly  re- 
ceived   and    approved    of  by  the  primitive    Church,   which, 
without  doubt,  must  have  best  understood  the  hard  passages 
in  the  Sacred  Oracles  from  the  tradition  of  the  true  sense  so 
lately  derived  from  the  Apostles   themselves.     Before  Au- 
gustiners time,  four  doctors  of  the  Church  are  produced  by 
our  opponents   in   support  of  their  cause,  viz.  Methodius, 
whom  we  have  just  mentioned :  Hüary,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
and  Ambrose.     But  I  am  not  yet  certain  that  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen  did  really  understand  the  passage  to  speak  of  a  person 
truly  regenerate.     Certainly  the  passage  quoted  from  him  by 
lib.  ii.  cap.  Augustinc,  docs  not  prove  it :  in  fact,  if  I  remember  rightly, 
rn.'vol^x!  ^^  gives  the  contrary  Interpretation  of  it  somewhere  in  his 
part  ii.  p.    Poems.      So  in  the  same  wav  Ausrustine  brinofs  foi'o'ard  a 

r  Ort  "1  *  o  D 

passage  from  Cyprian,  on  the  Lord's  Praycr :  where  it  is 
clear  that  the  blessed  Martyr  is  not  speaking  of  Rom.  \\\, 
but  of  Gal.  V.  17,  between  which  two  passages  I  have  else- 
where  shewn  there  is  a  wide  diÖ'erence, 

With  regard  to  Ambrose,  though  he  is  of  the  same  opi- 
nion  as  Augustine  about  St.  Paulis  meaning  in  ver.  15.  and 
the  following,  stiU  he  gives  us  enough  entircly  to  overthrow 
Augustine's  interprctation.  For  he  explains  the  words 
(ver.  14.)   'But  I  am   carnal,  sold  under   sin,'  to  meau  a 


against  Dr.  Tully's  four.     St.  Augustine.  365 

wicked  man.     Aud  so  in  bis  book  on  Isaac  and  the  Soul,   s  E  c  T. 

he  says,  "  Where  the  soul  is  put  for  man,  one  must  under — — 

stand  him  as  clinging  to   God  and  not  to  the    body ;    as,  et  Anima. 
'  blessed  is  every  soul  that  is  simple^.'    But  where  the  flesh  is  ?•  2-  b'°^' 

.  .  T  1-  P-  357.] 

put  for  man,  a  sinner  is  meant;  as,  'I  am  carnal,  sold  under  rprov.  ii. 

sin/  "    But  erantin^  that  these  four  writers  ao:reed  with  Au-  ^'^ ;  LXX. 

1         .  .  r      ^  •         ^  i  ^ee  Schle- 

gustme  on  the  mterpretation  oi  this  chapter,  yet  what  an  usnerLex. 
array  of  Catholic  doctors  are  we  able  to  set  against  these  ^^'\^^ 
few  !     Justin  ]Mai*tyr,  Irenreus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Ter-  anxods.] 
tullian,  Cyprian,  Origen,  Macarius,  Basil  the  Great,  Cyril, 
Chrysostom,  the  wiiter  of  the  Commentaries  attributed  to 
Ambrose,  St.  Pacian  and  others,  ^vho  all  of  them  lived  before 
Augustine.     And  with  regard  to  Augustine,  we  can  put  him 
against  himself,  before  he  had  become  engaged  in  the  heat 
of  the  Pelagian  controversy  :  and  vre  anxiously  beseech  the 
reader  to  compare  his  lAi'itings'^   on  this  passage  vrhen  he 
followed  the  common  opinion  of  the  Fathers  who  had  lived 
before  him,  with  the  Interpretation  which  he  sought  after  the 
rise  of  the  Pelagian  heresy,  and  the  reasons  which  induced 
him  to  embrace  it :  as  given  by  himself  in  his  first  book  of 
Retractations.     K  the  reader  will  do  this,  we  have  no  doubt  cap.  23.  et 
that   he   will   greatly  prefer  Augustine  before  Pelagius,  to  jj  \^   ^  ' 
Augustine  against  Pelagius.     It  was  truly  said  by  a  great 
man  that  Augustine  was  accustomed  to  change  his  opinions, 
and  that  not  always  for  the  better.     He  once  denied  that 
it  was  possible  for  God  to  be  seen  with  the  eyes  of  a  glorified 
body  :  afterwards  he  thought  the  reverse,  and  died  in  that 
opinion. 

§  6.  We  must  add  here  by  the  way,  (as  has  also  been  ob- 
served  by  learned  men,)  that  the  interpretation  of  modern 
di^ines  with  whom  Dr.  Tully  agrees,  is  most  widely  different 
from  Augustine's  sense  and  meaning.  For  that  good  which 
the  Apostle  says  he  Avilled  but  did  not  do,  and  that  evil  that 
he  says  he  would  not,  but  still  did,  this  they  Interpret  to 
mean  actual  good  and  e\il :  explaining  the  evil  to  be  the 
very  deed  itself  which  is  committed  with  the  consent  of  the 

"  [Anima     benedicta     omnis    sira-  Quaest.  expos.  Epist.  ad  Rom.  [vol.  iii. 

plex.]  p.   909,   &c.]   nee    non   Quaest.   I.    ad 

*  viz.    quaest.   66.  üb.    LXXXIII.  Simplicianum.  [vol.  vi.  p.  81,  &c.J 
Qua^stiouum.  [vol.  vi.  p.  44,  &c.]  et,  in 


366  Modems  opposed  to  St.  Augustine. 

s  E  c  T.  will  from  the  concupiscence  of  tlie  flesh,  against  the  desire 

— —  of  the  spirit :  and  the  good,  to  be  the  very  deed  which  a 

man  wishes  to  do  aceording  to  the  spirit,  but  is  prevented 
from  actually  doing  it  by  the  concupiscence   of  the   flesh. 
On  the  other  band,  Augustine  plainly  teaches  that  if  this 
passage  is  to  be   explained  as  speaking    of  actual    sins,  it 
cannot  be   understood   to    speak    of  a   regenerate   person : 
and  if  it  does,  then  we  must  necessarily  understand  it  as 
speaking   of  the   internal   acts    only   of    concupiscence,   to 
which  a  man  does  not   consent.     Thus,  in  bis  treatise  on 
cap.  31.     Marriage  and  Concupiscence,  he  says  :  "  The  Apostle,  how- 
X  part  h°   6ver,  goes  on,  and  says,  '  So  then  with  the  mind,  I  myself 
p.  297.]     serve  the  law  of  God;  but  with  the  flesh,  the  law  of  sin  :' 
which  is  to  be  understood  as  follows  :  '  With  the  mind  I 
serve  the  law  of  God,'  by  not  consenting  to  the  law  of  sin ; 
'but  with  the   flesh,^   I  serve  'the  law  of  sin,^  by  having 
the  desires  of  sin,   from   which,  though  I  consent   not  to 
Hb.  i.  cap.  them,  I  am  not  yet  altogether  free."     Again,  against  the 
rlb     421  ^^^  Epistles  of  the  Pelagians ;  "  And  thence  he  concludes, 
§  21.]        '  So  then  with  the  mind,  I  myself  serve  the  law  of  God  :  but 
with  the  flesh,  the  law  of  sin  -.'  that  is,  with  the  flesh  the  law 
of  sin,  by  concupiscence  ;  but  with  the  mind  the  law  of  God, 
by  not  consenting  unto  the  same  concupiscence."     Again, 
ver.  5.       against  Julian :  "  Be  unwilling,  therefore,  to  do  that  which 
thou   wishest   not   to   sufi'er,  and   say   not   that   we   in^dte 
to  pleasant  deeds,  you  to  whom  we  quote  the  Apostle,  say- 
ing,  '  For  I  know  that  in  me  (that  is,  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth 
no  good  thing:'  for  although  tliey  do  not  the  good  which 
they  would,  not  to  desire,  yet  tliey  go  not  after  their  desires, 
and  that  is  to  do  good."     And  in  the  same  way,  every  where 
throughout  Ins  writings.  One  might,  therefore,  without  touch- 
ing  Augustine,  condemn  Dr.  Tully's  interpretation  as  absurd. 
And  yet  there  have  not  been  wanting  very  leai'ned  men,  who, 
fully  giving  Augustine  liis  due,  have  freely  censured  bis  in- 
terpretation. 

Thus  the  grcat  Erasmus,  on  Rom.  vii.  25.  "  It  is  true  that 
Augustine  contends  against  the  two  Epistles  of  the  Pela- 
gians, (I.  8.  and  some  chapters  following,)  that  the  whole  of 
this  passage  may  be  meant  for  St.  Paid,  either  as  a  youth,  or 
as  under  the  law  of  sin,  or  as  feeling  under  grace  the  raotions 


Laiins  not  all  foUoivers  of  Aiigustine.  367 

of  the  passions,  tliough  not  assenting  to  them  ;  but  he  sti'ains  s  E  c  T. 
many  points  so  much,  that  it  -vvould.  do  better  to  suppose '— — 


St.  Paul  had  taken  upon  hira  the  character  of  the  human 
race,  in  which  there  is  the  Gentile  without  the  law^  the 
carnal  Jew  under  the  law,  and  the  spiritual  freed  through 
grace."  And  in  truth,  (to  state  the  case  as  it  really  is^)  what 
can  be  more  strained  and  naiTow  than  this  interpretation, 
which  applies  such  expressions  of  the  Apostle  as  'being  car- 
nal/ ^  sold  under  sin/  '  doing  e-v"il/  '  unable  to  do  what  is  good,^ 
'  brought  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin/  '  ser^ing  the  law  of 
sin/  to  a  man  who  is  under  grace,  and  feels  the  motions  of 
his  passionSj  but  in  no  degree  assents  unto  them  ?  We 
should  notj  however,  greatly  oppose  Dr.  Tidly  and  his 
friends,  were  they  content  with  Augustine's  Interpretation, 
which,  though  absurd  enough,  still  is  by  itself  harmless  :  but 
they  seem  to  have  thought  that  his  Interpretation  (to  use 
Dr.  Tully's  own  words)  "  did  not  particularly  tend  to  the  Diss.  p.  i. 
com  fort  of  the  faithful." 

§  7.  Let  US  now  proceed  to  Dr.  Tully's  second  assertion, 
or  rather  suspicion :  namely,  that  after  Pelagius,  all  the 
Fathers,  especially  the  Latin,  are  on  his  side.  But  alas, 
how  far  is  this  assertion  from  the  truth !  For  the  Greek 
doctors,  even  after  Augustine  and  Pelagius,  adhered  con- 
sistently  to  the  primitive  Interpretation,  as  had  been  received 
and  approved  by  the  Catholic  Church  :  in  proof  of  this, 
Theodoret,  Theophylact,  CEcumenius,  Damascene,  and  others, 
are  sufficient  witnesses.  Indeed  the  writings  of  St.  Augus- 
tine were  either  not  so  much  known,  or  were  not  so  much 
admired  by  these  Greek  Fathers :  whereas  in  the  Latin 
Church  an  excessive  veneration  for  this  great  doctor  (for 
we  must  confess  the  truth)  drew  away  many  from  the  more 
commonly  received  opinion  of  the  earher  Fathers,  both  in 
this  point  and  many  others,  and  caused  them  to  embrace 
opinions  which  were  almost  peculiar  to  himself.  Neither  is 
it  true  that  all  the  Latin  Fathers  after  Augustine,  followed 
his  teaching.  We  have  already  shewn  that  Ennodius  and 
Seduhus  are  on  our  side.  Primasius  and  Haimo,  as  Estius 
observ'es,  unite  both  interpretations,  Augustine's  and  the 
older  one.  Bede  also  is  uncertain,  and  doubts  which  cxpo- 
sition  he  shall  take.     For  on  those  words  in  Rom.  vii.  '  We 


368  Testimony  of  modern  reformed  divines. 

s  E  c  T.  know  that  tlie  law  is  spii'itual/  he  says  :  "  Perchance,  there- 

~ —  fore,  some  otlier  oue  is  meant  here  :  perhaps  yoii  are  ;  either 

you  are,  or  I  am.  If  therefore  it  is  some  one  of  us,  let  us 
listen  to  him  as  if  he  were  spealdng  of  himself,  and  without 
anger  let  us  correct  om'selves.  Bnt  if  he  himself  is  intended, 
let  US  not  understand  him,  because  he  said,  '  What  I  would, 
that  I  do  not ;  but  what  I  hate,  that  I  do/  as  if  he  wished 
to  be  chaste  but  was  an  adulterer,  or  wished  to  be  merciful 
and  was  cruel,  or  wished  to  be  holy  and  was  unholy.  But 
how  then?  I  wish  not  to  be  coneupiscent,  and  yet  I  am 
concupiscent."  Of  later  writers,  whom  it  is  not  the  custom 
to  esteem  moderns,  Lyranus  and  Carthusianus  are,  according 
to  Estius,  for  our  interpretation. 

§  8.  It  remains  for  us  to  say  a  few  words  on  Dr.  Tully's 
third  and  last  assertion.  He  says  that  only  one  or  two 
modern  divdnes  of  any  note  favour  our  interpretation.  But 
what  of  this,  supposing  it  to  be  true  ?  We  certainly  ac- 
knowledge  that  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  the  consent 
of  the  primitive  Church  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  opinion  of 
all  moderns,  be  they  ever  so  numerous  or  learned :  but  this 
also  is  far  fi'om  being  true.  For  in  support  of  our  interpre- 
tation there  are  not  only  Faber  Stapulensis,  Erasmus,  Isi- 
dorus  Clarius,  Zeger,  Cardinal  Toledo,  and  many  other  very 
learned  divines  in  the  Roman  Church :  but  among  the  re- 
formed, there  are  Castellio,  Wolfgang  Musculus,  Bucer  (who 
at  least  agrees  with  us  thus  far,  as  altogether  to  deny  that 
St.  Paul  in  Rom.  vii.  is  speaking  of  himself),  Grotius,  Vossius, 
Amyraldus,  and  no  few  or  unimportant  ones  in  the  reformed 
Gallican  Church;  and  of  our  own  divines,  those  men  of 
blessed  memory,  the  profound  Jackson,  the  great  Hammond, 
Bishop  Taylor,  a  prelate  of  special  genius,  learning,  and  piety, 
Farindon,  and  very  many  great  di\dnes,  who  at  the  present 
day  are  an  honour  to  the  Church  of  England,  and  at  the 
same  time  are  duly  honoured  by  her. 

§  9.  What  Dr.  TuUy  says  afterwards  concerning  the 
Catechism  of  Trent,  has  nothing  to  do  with  our  present 
subject.  We  make  but  this  one  remark  :  that  the  old  proverb 
applies  here,  '  the  cover  is  worthy  of  the  dish :'  for  in  fact 
that  interpretation  of  St.  Paul's  meaning  excellently  suits 
a  catechism  which,  bcsides  other  dogmas  quite  opposed  to 


Charge  of  opposiny  the  Church  of  England.  369 

Christian  pietv,  teaches  >'  that  trae  contrition  for  sin  is  not  S  E  c  T. 
necessary  for  all :  in  fact  that  very  few  Christians  can  attain  — -^— 
unto  itj  and  so  to  supply  this  defect,  God  in  His  great  in- 
diügence  has   substituted   the  sacranient  of  Absolution,  by 
M'hich,   forsooth,   'the  common    salvation    of   men    may  be 
obtained  in  an  easier  way/ 

§  10.  I  must  not  however  pass  over  his  string  of  remarks 
on  the  judgment  of  oiu-  own  holj^  Church,  but  I  am 
compelled  to  say  this  much,  by  way  of  preface.  Dr.  Tully's 
audacity  is  hardly  to  be  borne  ^yhen  we  find  him,  as  mc  do, 
setting  up  all  his  OAvn  dogmas  for  the  decrees  of  the  Church 
of  Englaiid.  "We  cannot  think  differently  frorn  him  and 
from  the  interpretation  of  even  one  passage  of  Scripture,  but 
we  straightway  speak  against  the  voice  of  our  Church.  As 
if  indeed  so  gentle  a  mother  had  thrust  her  sons  into  such  a 
strait,  that  it  was  not  open  to  them  when  investigating  the 
meauiug  of  the  more  difficult  passages  in  Holy  Writ,  freely 
to  inquire  what  was  the  opinion  of  the  most  ancient  and 
approved  divines  of  the  Church,  and  to  follow  their  consent. 
So  far  fi'om  this,  she  bids  us  do  so :  she  has  commanded  it  in 
her  decrees,  as  we  have  already  shewn.  But  Dr.  Tully's  sole 
object  throughout  his  whole  book  is^  that  his  Opponent  may 
be  accounted  (whether  justly  or  not,  it  matters  not)  an  enemy 
of  the  Church  of  England ;  for  this  end  he  has  thought  fit  to 
distort  the  Ai'ticles,  and  pervert  the  Homilies.  Would  that 
he  had  first  seriously  reflected  (to  use  his  own  words)  how 
many  great  names  this  invidious  attack  must  assail !  AVe 
care  not  much  for  the  Harmonist,  indeed :  but  what  be- 
comes,  if  Dr.  Tully  prevails,  of  the  divines  Avhoni  we  have 
just  mentioned,  those  great  lights  and  Ornaments  of  our 
Church,  with  whom  both  in  this  and  other  points  he  agrees  ? 
Are  they  too  to  be  rejected  as  spuriovis  and  disobedient 
children,  drowning  the  voice  of  their  mother?  Should  this 
ever  happen,  (which  may  God  avert !)  I  know  not  how  such 
a  loss  to  the  Church  could  l:)e  repaired,  or  where  our  beloved 
mother  would  find  niorc  true  and  worthy  sons.  But  to 
come  to  the  point.  The  argument  by  which  he  endeavours 
to  prove  that  mc  contradict  the  Church  of  England  in  ex- 

y  Vid.    Catechis.    Tridnit.    p.    11.    cb.    5.    de    Pcenitentia    n.    29—32.    coli. 
11.  24—27. 

BULL.  1}    \) 


370         Difference  between  Rom.  vü.  ip.  and  Gal.  v.  17. 

S  E  C  T.  plaining  this  passage,  is  maiiily  this.     There  are  tliese  points 
'■ —  to  be  observed  in  tlie  iiinth  article  :  Ist.  That  original  sin  is 


the  fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man  that  is 
naturally  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam.  2ndly.  By 
this  corruption  man  is  very  far  gone  from  original  righte- 
ousness.  3rdly.  That  this  same  infection  of  nature  doth 
remain  in  them  that  are  regenerated.  4thly.  That  the 
Apostle,  that  is,  Paul,  doth  confess  this.  5thly.  To  prove 
this,  a  few  words  only  from  Gal.  v.  17,  are  quoted;  but  this 

Gal.  5. 17.  is  no  matter;  inasmuch  as  it  is  piain  that  this  passage  is  of 
precisely  the  same  meaning  as  that  in  Rom.  vii.  19 :  so  that 
at  length  we  get  this  much  from  it,  namely,  that  the  Fathers 
of  the  Anglican  Church  were  of  opinion  that  the  words 
of  the  Apostle  in  Rom.  vii.  from  ver.  14,  were  most  certainly 
to  be  understood  as  speaking  of  a  regenerate  person.  Kow 
the  whole  force  of  this  fine  argument  depends  on  this :  viz. 
that  the  passage  in  Gal.  v.  17,  means  precisely  the  same  thing 
as  that  in  Rom.  vii.  19.    But  I  have  proved  this  not  to  be  so  in 

II.  Diss.    the  Harmonv,  where  it  was  clearlvshewn  that  these  passages 

ix  23 25.  .  .  " 

p/ii3__  '  agree  in  this  one  respect,  namely,  that  each  of  them  describes 
^^^-  a  certain  struggle  in  the  man :  but  that  there  is  a  vast  differ- 

ence between  the  kinds  of  struggle,  whether  we  regard  the 
persons,  or  the  event  of  the  struggle  and  contest.  But  what 
reply  does  Dr.  Tully  make  to  this?  not  a  syllable.  And  is 
this  the  part  of  a  fair  and  straightforward  disputer  ?  But  Dr. 
Tully  had  needs  take  care  lest  this  argument  recoil  upon  him- 
self.  If  the  Fathers  of  our  Church  had  believed  that  the  Apo- 
stle in  Rom  vii.  must  certainly  be  understood  of  a  regenerate 
person,  they  surely  would  have  quoted  the  passage  before  all 
others,  to  prove  their  conclusion,  namely,  that  concupiscence 
doth  remain  even  in  the  regenerate :  since,  if  it  be  so  under- 
stood, it  is  the  most  apposite  of  all  in  coufirmation  of  such  a 
Position  :  but  they  evidently  do  no  such  thing:  for  omitting 
'  this  passage,  they  make  use  of  the  otlier  from  the  Galatians, 

which  all  explain  as  speaking  of  a  man  under  the  grace  of 
the  Gospel.  And  now  I  think  sufficient  answer  has  been 
made  to  every  thing  Dr.  Tully  has  brought  forward,  whether 
from  the  Fathers  or  the  Articlcs  of  the  Church  of  England, 
against  our  interpretation  of  the  seventh  chapter  of  the 
Romans :   and  I  appeal  to  the  fair-mindcd  readcr,  whether  I 


Objections  reconsidered.  371 

mav  not    with   iustice   return    Dr.    Tullv    liis    owu   words :   S  E  C  T. 

'         ,  •     •         IX 

"  And  now  I  tliink  it  is  clear  enough  how  dangerous  it  is 


-  .  .  i  1   -L  1  ■         •    ^  Diss.  p.  9. 

lor  any  one  m  an  important  matter  to  cele  brate  nis  ^ictorr 
before  he  has  le\'ied  together  and  reviewed  his  forces/^ 

§  11.  After  producing  these  authorities,  Dr.  Tully  at 
length  proceeds  to  the  consideration  of  the  passage  itself. 
It  would  be  enough  for  my  pui'pose  to  pass  over  all  that  he 
says  upon  it,  and  to  refer  the  reader  to  the  HarmonV;  II.  Diss. 
ix.  For  I  am  sure,  if  any  one  will  read  tliat  chapter  atteu- 
tively  and  impartially,  and  compare  it  -with  -svhat  Dr.  Tully 
has  brought  against  it  in  his  own  Dissertation,  he  will  easily 
see  that  he  by  no  means  brings  satisfactoiy  answers  to  my 
ai'guments :  and  that  my  refutation  of  the  arguments  of  the 
opposite  party  remains  untouched  and  unshaken.  But  lest  I 
should  seem  to  avoid  the  question,  I  will  not  hesitate  briefly 
to  run  over  the  several  objections  brought  against  me. 

In  the  Harmony,  my  arguments  against  that  interpreta-  il.  Diss. 
tion  which  Dr.  Tully  upholds,  are  as  follow :  "In  the  p^'gg  " 
first  place,  it  (i.  e.  this  Interpretation)  supposes  that  the 
Apostle  here  introduces  observations  unimportant,  and  per- 
fectly  foreign  to  his  design.  For  it  is  most  clear  that  at 
the  beginning  of  the  chapter  he  speaks  of  the  inefficacy 
of  the  law  in  fr-eeing  men  from  the  dominion  of  sin,  and, 
nioreover,  shews  that  so  far  from  doing  that,  it  even  irritated 
and  increased  the  force  of  sinful  desire.  From  this  doctrine, 
and  this  only,  arose  the  objections  which  the  Apostle  discusses 
in  the  seventh  and  thirteenth  verses.  But  it  is  altogether 
absurd  and  impossible  that  the  Apostle  should  answer  objec- 
tions arising  from  the  inefficacy  of  the  law  in  those  wlio  have 
not  the  grace  of  the  Gospel,  by  a  representation  of  his  own 
State  under  the  Gospel."  To  this,  Dr.  Tully,  after  again  attack- 
ing  the  Harmonist  about  his  youth  in  a  very  uncourteous 
and  angry  manner,  makes  the  foUowing  reply.  "  How,  I  ask,  Diss.p.  lo. 
could  the  Apostle  more  effectually  iuvite  to  the  grace  and 
righteousness  of  the  Gospel,  men  who  were  mad  for  wcrks,  ifryoua»- 
though  wanting  in  all  true  piety,  than  by  his  own  example, 
who  having  been  once  iinder  the  law,  could  not  do  any  good, 
until  he  was  admitted  by  faith  to  the  grace  of  the  Gospel  ?" 
It  is  indeed  marvellous  how  such  an  answer  could  come 
from  a  leamed  man,  which  so  far  from  solving  the  argument, 

B  b  2 


372  St.  Paiil  ver.  u.  amivers  objection  in  ver.  vi. 

S  E  c  T.  has  not  even  auy  tliino:  to  do  with  it.     Besides,  there  is  an 

IX.  .     "  .  . 
untrue  assertion   m   it :     namelr,   that   the  Apostle  in  tlie 

fonrteenth  and  foUowing  verses  is  describing  the  state  of  a 
man,  wlio,  through  the  grace  of  the  Gospel,  had  arrived  at 
that  which  by  the  law  he  had  not  been  able  to  do,  naraely, 
to  shake  ofF  the  joke  of  sin,  and  break  throiigh  its  dominion. 
For  on  the  contraiy,  these  verses  clearly  describe  the  state  of 
a  man  still  carnal,  and  sold  under  sin,  avIio,  very  far  from 
being  able  to  do  what  is  right,  is  led  captive  by  the  law  of 
sin,  and  serves  it.  Dr.  Tully's  next  reraark  is  of  the  same 
stanip.  "  Wliat  he  adds  touching  the  state  of  his  warfare 
against  the  flesli,  though  with  the  sure  hope  of  victory,  is  a 
greater  inducement  for  hini  strenuously  to  nndergo  the 
struggle,  since  what  the  ineffectual  rigour  of  the  law  eonld 
not  do,  the  most  effectual  grace  of  the  Gospel  can."  Now 
in  the  first  place,  the  Apostle's  argument  in  the  fonrteenth 
and  following  verses  is  not  only  joined  to  the  former  verses, 
as  being  in  some  way  connected  with  them  bnt  it  is  a  direct 
answer  to  the  objection  contained  in  the  thirteenth  verse.  The 
objection  there  made  is,  that  it  is  a  wonderful  thing  that  that 
law  which  is  of  itself  holy,  jnst,  and  good,  should  be  made 
the  cause  of  death  to  those  who  are  under  it.  I  agaiu  ask, 
How  do  the  verses  following  get  rid  of  this  objection,  if  the 
Apostle  is  there  speaking  of  his  own  regeneration :  since  \i\ 
a  State  of  regeneration  he  is  no  longer  under  the  dispensa- 
tion  of  the  law,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  it ;  much  less  is 
the  law  the  cause  of  death  to  him,  or  capable  of  being  so  ? 
We  may  in  vaiu  wait  for  Dr.  TuUy's  answer  to  this  question. 
2ndly.  I  know  not  with  what  semblance,  even,  of  truth, 
Dr.  Tully  could  say  that  in  the  fourteenth  and  following 
verses  man's  struggle  with  the  flesh,  joined  Avith  a  sure  hope 
of  victory,  is  described.  For  on  the  contrary,  a  contest  is 
there  plainly  depictcd,  from  which  nothing  could  be  expected 
but  that  he  must  be  overcorae  by  the  flesh,  and  be  led  cap- 
tive to  sin :  and  is  this  a  great  inducement  for  strenuously 
undergoing  the  struggle  ? 
ll.Diss.ix.  §  12.  In  the  same  section  I  had  most  clearly  proved  by 
■  ^''  ■  another  argument  that  Dr.  Tully 's  interpretation  was  entirely 
foreign  to  the  design  and  purpose  of  the  Apostle,  as  follows : 
"In  the  next  place,  since  all  allow  that  the  Apostle,  from 


The  same  person  intended  throughout.  373 

tlie  seventh  verse  to  the  fourteenth,  is  speaking  of  the  state  s  E  c  T. 
of  a  mau  who  is  under  the  law,  what  sufficient  reason  can  be  — '  ' — 
imagined  tliat  Are  should  suppose  he  changes  his  design  in 
the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  verses?  especially  as  tlie  words 
of  the  fourteenth  verse  contain  evidently  the  reason  of  what 
had  gone  before,  as  appears  by  the  causative  j^article  for, 
which  connects  it  with  the  preceding  verses."  To  this 
Dr.  TuUy  rephes  (with  his  usual  measure  of  irony  by  way  of 
introductionj  "  A^Tiat  can  be  plainer  than  that  the  Apo- Diss.p.ii 
stle's  only  or  at  least  chief  object  in  the  whole  of  his  argu- 
ment,  from  the  beginning  of  the  Epistle  to  the  end  of  the 
seventh  chapter,  is  to  lead  sinners  from  themselves  to  Christ, 
from  their  own  righteousness  of  works  to  that  which  is  in 
Christ  by  faith  ?  And  to  make  this  clearer,  he  shews,  Ist, 
that  such  was  the  rigour  of  the  law,  that  it  admitted  of  no 
works  for  salvation,  on  which  there  was  the  very  least  taint 
of  sin :  and  therefore  to  hope  for  life  by  the  law  was  useless. 
And  2ndly,  that  that  deadly  power  of  the  law  (i.  e.  of  which 
he  had  been  speaking)  came  not  from  its  own  nature,  but 
from  the  inherent  sin  of  all  men,  &:c.  But  since  this  is  born 
in  all,  and  dwells  equally  in  Paul  the  regenerate  as  in  Paul 
the  persecutor  of  Christ,  (though  through  the  grace  of  Christ 
its  dominion  is  not  so  powerful  in  believcrs,)  why,  I  ask, 
should  it  be  thought  irrelevant  for  St.  Paul  to  prove  the  same 
thing  by  different  '  middle  terms,'  of  which  the  one  is  himself 
as  yet  unregenerate,  the  otlier  himself  when  regenerate?" 
But  what  is  all  this  but  to  bewilder  his  reader  with  perplex- 
ities,  and  draw  him  off  from  the  subject  itself  ?  Our  argu- 
ment  is  as  follows :  The  causative  particle  for,  in  the  four- 
teenth verse,  plainly  shews  its  connection  with  the  preceding 
verses :  this  connection  shews  the  same  subject  is  liere 
treated  of  as  before :  and  that  the  pronoun  /  must  signify 
the  same  person  as  it  did  in  the  former  verses.  Now  all 
agree  that  the  Apostle  was  before  speaking  of  a  man  under 
the  law,  and  that  the  pronoun  /  stood  for  a  man  under  the 
law :  therefore  in  this  verse  also,  where  the  cause  is  given  of 
what  had  been  said  above,  he  is  speaking  of  a  man  under 
the  law :  otherwise  the  whole  were  but  so  many  loose  sticks. 
And  so  a  very  learned  divine  has  used  this  argumcnt,  though 
in  diflFerent  words.     And  now  I  ask  what  has  Dr.  Tidlv  done 


874 


Opposite  interpretation  tested. 


s  E  c  T.  towards  solving  tlie  obiection  ?     But  that  the  wliole  matter 

IX  «j  (I 

'- —  may  bc  clearer,  Ict  us  now  takc  thc  follovving  parai)hi'ase  of 

tlie  thirtcontli  aiul  fmirtcentb  vcrscs,  accommodatcd  to  tlieir 
supposition  who  arc  of  opinion  that  thc  Apostlc  bcgins  in  thc 
fourteeuth  versc  to  speak  of  himself  as  regeiicrate. 


TEXT,  rAllAlMlRASE. 

Ver.  13.  Was  tlien,  that  Was  then  a  good  hivv  the 
w/iirh  in  f/ood  wade  death  cause  of  dcath  to  me  (who 
nntit  mv .'  Vtod.  forh'id.  Bat  was  iustructcd  iiidced  by  thc 
sin,  that  it  mii/hf  a/)/>rar  sin,  kuowicdgc  of  tlic  hiw,  but 
vjorkifig  death  in  nie  Inj  that  not  yct  rcgenerated  by  the 
irliirh  is  f/ood :  that  sin  l)ij  grivcc  of  thc  (liospel  ?)  God 
thc  roniniandnicnt  iniyht  In'-  ("orbid  !  but  sin  and  vicious 
come.  ewceedinff  sinful.  busts  in   uic  bcing  more   iu- 

(huncd  and  irritatcd  by  occa- 
sion  of  thc  gooil  hiw,  (as  1  said  in  vcrsc  8,)  wcrc  strictly  and 
})ropcrly  the  cause  of  that  death,  tliat  heiicc  might  appear 
tlic  uiittirc  of  sin,  and  what  w  wickcd  thiug  (so  to  spcak)  sin 
actually  is,  which  couhl  convcrt  thc  best  gift  of  God  to  niy 
dcstruction. 


riOX  r.  TAU  MMIUVSK. 

Vcr.  11.  For  nw  knou'  that  Still  niorc  clcarly  to  c,\- 
the  law  is  spiritnal .  hiit  I  am  piain  thc  matter,  there  is  a 
carnal,  sold  ander  sin.  gicnt  diÜcrcnce  betwecn  my 

uaturc  and  tliat  of  thc  law. 
For  the  hiw  comiug  from  God  Ihc  S|)irit  of  purily,  cnjoins  ii 
8I)iritual  nuinncr  of  lifo.  But  1  (that  is,  I  Pa\d,  now  cou- 
vertcd  to  the  faith  of  thc  Gospcl,  i!;iftcd  with  thc  S|)irit  of 
Christ,  and  so  brought  to  (hc  Iiii::li(\st  piu-h  of  Christian 
virtue)  am  of  a  carnal  disposilion,  r(>puü;nanl  lo  llu»  spiritnal 
law,  and  cnslavcd  l)y  vih>  all'cctions.  lb>ncc  thc  u\iscrable 
ncc(\ssity  is  laid  lipon  mc  of  transgrcssiug  thc  law,  and  of 
sudcring  llic  dratli  imposcd  upon  its  transgressors :  so  that 
dcath  clcarly  liccomcs  my  porlion  by  uu'aus  ot"  thc  law,  yct 
in  nowisc  througli  tlic  lanli  of  thc  law.  but  ou  accouut  of  my 
owu  n»rru|)t  dispositiou. 

Now  cvcry  ouc  u\iist   sim-  tlial   tlic  parcul lii'sis  in  tlic  para- 


St.  PuuVs  parenthesh  in  rer.  25.  375 

phrase   of  the   fourteenth   verse,   wliicli    iiiust   be   inserted  s  E  c  T, 
accordiiif;  to  Dr.  Tully's  hypothesis,  caviscs  the  divinc  dis- 


c'üursc  of  the  Apostle  to  become  vapid,  vmconncctcd,  aud 
absurd.  But  if  it  be  left  out,  and  the  pronoun  /  in  the  four- 
teenth verse  be  understood  to  mean  the  same  person  as  it 
did  in  the  thirtcenth  and  former  verses,  (which  we  contend 
must  be  done,)  then  the  Apostle's  argument  is  clear,  perspi- 
cuous,  and  consisteut.  If,  however,  Dr.  Tully  comphiius  that 
we  have  unfairly  attributed  this  inconsistent  paraphrase  to 
hira,  we  entreat  hira  to  bring  forward  another  which  is  nei- 
ther  at  variance  with  the  words  and  dcsign  of  the  Apostle, 
nor  witli  his  own  hypothesis :  and  if  he  can,  we  will  at  once 
yield  the  day. 

§  13.  Dr.  Tully  procceds :  "  I  do  not  see,"  he  says,  "why  Diss.p.  12. 
our  friend  the  Ilarraonist  should  consider  sucli  a  transition 
from  one  state  to  another  so  absurd,  unless  he  is  willing  to 
condemn  himself  as  guilty  of  the  same  absurdity,  by  apply- 
ing  the  former  part  of  the  twenty-fifth  verse  of  this  chapter 
to  Paul  regencrate,  whieh  is  equally  absurd."  I  answer : 
The  Apostle  Paul,  after  a  long  description  in  the  preceding 
Verses  of  the  miserable  state  of  man  under  the  law  and  desti- 
tute  of  evangelical  grace,  celebrates  iu  the  beginning  of  ver. 
25.  in  a  short  parenthesis,  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ,  by 
which  alonc  both  he  himself  luid  been  freed  from  that  deplor- 
able  condition,  and  a  way  of  deliverance  from  it  was  made 
and  opened  to  others  :  and  then  he  returns  to  his  former 
subject.  I  leave  it  to  others  to  decidc  whcther  this  paren- 
thesis of  mine,  which  however  is  not  my  own,  but  which  the 
ancient  doctors  attribute  with  one  consent  to  the  Apostle,  is 
as  absurd  as  that  paraphrase  of  Dr.  Tully's :  but  more  on 
this  subject  hereafter. 

§  14.  Dr.  Tully  procceds:  "What  sort  of  connection,"  he  Diss.p.  13. 
says,  "  will  he  find  iu  the  verse  immediately  following,  Rom.  8.  l. 
'  There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnatiou  to  thcm  which 
are  in  Christ  Jesus,'  whcn  according  to  him  no  mention  of 
such  pcrsons  occurs  in  the  whole  of  the  preceding  chapter, 
exccpting  in  this  short  sentence  in  the  last  verse,  *  I  thank 
dod,'  &c.  ?  But  whcn  he  rests  his  objection  on  the  causative 
particle yör,  what  does  he  do  with  these  words  in  eh.  viii.  1. 
•There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnatiou ?'    Now  therefore  ! 


376  Analysis  of  Rom.  vü. 

S  E  C  T.  -whv  so  ?  Wlience  is  this  inference  ?"  &c.     What  a  foff  the 

IX             *  •        • 
^-^ —  reverend  gentleman  raises  in  a  clear  sky  !     Please,  reader^ 


to  refer  to  the  analysis  of  the  seventh  chapter  of  the 
II.  Diss.  Romans  in  our  Harmony,  where  I  have  clearly  explaiued 
p'^.  97_L '  the  connection  of  the  Apostle's  argument  in  the  whole 
99-  of  the    seventh    chapter^    and    also    of    the    eighth   chapter 

with  the  seventh.  The  sum  of  this  analysis  is  as  foUows : 
Ist.  The  Apostle  teaches  in  the  four  first  verses  of  the 
seventh  chapter,  tliat  the  Jews  who  had  embraced  the 
faith  of  Christ,  were  no  longer  bound  by  the  law  given 
through  ]Moses ;  but  vcere  just  as  free  from  that  Obligation 
as  a  woman  is  free  from  the  bond  of  matrimony  on  the 
death  of  her  husband.  2ndlj,  That  the  Jews  might  un- 
derstand  what  an  immense  blessing  this  was,  St.  Paul,  in 
the  fifth  verse,  shews  how  wretched  was  the  state  of  those 
under  the  law.  And  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  sixth  verse, 
the  blessed  condition  of  those  who  were  delivered  from  the 
bond  of  the  law  through  Christ :  so  that  Dr.  TuUy's  asser- 
tion  is  plainly  false  in  which  he  coufidently  states  that  ac- 
cording  to  our  Interpretation,  there  is  no  mention  of  re- 
generate  persons  in  chapter  the  seventh,  except  in  the  last 
verse.  For  we  acknowledge  and  exen  conteud  that  the 
Apostle  is  speaking  of  regenerate  persons  from  the  begin- 
ning  of  the  chapter  to  the  scA^enth  verse.  3rdly,  The  Apostle, 
not  content  with  saying  that  the  law  did  not  avail  for  de- 
stroying  the  corrupt  affections  of  men,  draws  the  contrary 
conclusion,  as  is  bis  custom,  by  assumiug  that  not  only  was 
it  of  no  use  for  taking  away  enl  desh'es,  but  it  accidentally 
served  to  excite  and  iuflame  them  :  and  lest  this  should 
appear  offensive  to  the  Jews,  and  give  occasion  for  cavilliug, 
as  if  the  Apostle  were  teacliing  that  the  law  was  the  cause  of 
sin,  and  therefore  that  it  was  bad,  lie  prudently  anticipates 
this  objection  in  the  seventh  verse,  and  refutes  it  in  those 
following.  4thly,  The  Apostle  dwells  upon  sohing  this  ob- 
jection, and  another  springing  from  it,  in  the  thirteenth 
verse,  up  to  the  end  of  the  chapter;  what  can  be  plainer 
than  this?  5thly.  Lastly,  he  repeats  in  the  bcginning  of 
the  eighth  chapter,  what  he  häd  said  in  the  first  six  verses  of 
the  seventh  chapter,  (from  whence  he  had  evidently  made  a 
digrcssion,  in  order  to  answer  these  objcctions,)  uamcly,  that 


Objection  from  chanye  of  tense  ver.  H.  377 

both  the  chaiu  of  the  Mosaic  law  Avas  loosed,  and  that  no   SECT. 

IX 
oiie  would  be  condemned  for  not  observing  its  ceremomes  — — — 


who  should  tread  tbe  path  of  that  spiritual  life  marked  out 
in  the  Gospel,  (verse  the  first),  and  also  that  all  true  Chris- 
tians were  delivered  through  the  Gospel  from  that  dominion 
of  sin  from  which  there  was  no  hope  or  possibility  of  deli- 
verance  through  the  ]Mosaic  law  (verses  2,  3,  4,  &c.)  If 
Dr.  TuUy  knows  of  a  clearer  analrsis  of  the  Apostle's  dis- 
course  than  this,  I  wisli  he  would  produce  it,  and  if  not^  that 
he  would  not  disdain  to  use  this  one  with  me.  Meanwhile 
it  is  quite  clear  to  an  observant  reader  how  hasty  the  Doctor 
must  have  been  when  he  closed  Ins  remarks^  on  the  connec- 
tion  of  St.  Paul's  discourse,  with  this  piece  of  irouy,  as  if  in 
triumphj  and  laughing  over  a  vanquished  enemy  :  "  And  now 
let  the  Harmonist  consider  whither  his  hastiness  has  brought 
him." 

§  15.  In  my  ninth  section,  I  have  met  an  objection 
brought  forward  by  opponents  in  the  föllowing  manner. 
"  The  usual  objection  of  the  change  of  tense  in  the  foui'teenth  II.  Diss. 
verse  is  so  trifling,  that  it  is  stränge  serious  men  should  have  j^'j  " 
ever  used  it.  For  what  is  it?  Because  the  Apostle  changes 
from  the  past  tense  to  the  present^  must  he  therefore  be 
supposed  to  change  the  original  design  of  his  argument  for 
one  totally  foreign  to  it  ?  Who  is  ignorant  that  this  change 
of  tenses  is  extremely  common  in  all  writers,  even  in  the 
same  context :  and  especially,  when  the  subject  they  are 
speaking  of  remains  the  same  as  it  was  ?" 

To  this  Dr.  Tully  rephes,  ''Humph!  Are  we  tben  to  Diss.p.14. 
think  it  stränge  to  separate  the  present  tense  from  the  past^ 
when  the  subject  itself  particularly  requires  it?"  I  answer: 
By  no  means.  But  this  I  say,  that  it  does  not  become 
serious-minded  men,  merely  on  account  of  a  change  in  the 
tenses,  to  attribute  to  the  Apostle  a  subject  totally  foreign 
to  his  design,  and  therefore  most  inconsistent  and  absurd. 

Dr.  Tully  proceeds  :  "  Let  him  even  shew  a  shadow  of 
reason  why  St.  Paul  should  pass  from  the  past  to  the  present 
tense,  when  it  in  no  way  assists  his  object.  For  if  he  is 
going  on  speaking  of  himsclf  as  unregenerate,  what  necessity 
was  there  for  him  to  change  the  teuse  ?"  I  answer  :  I  have 
shewn  more  than  a  shadow  of  reason  why  St.  Paul,  though 


378  Reasou  of  the  change  evident. 

SECT.   still  speaking  of  tlie  same  uuregenerate  person,  should  pass 

Y^ from  the  past  to  the  preseut  tense  :  1  beg  the  reader  to  listen 

to  my  own  words,  not  as  they  are  miserably  eropped  and 
mutilated  by  Dr.  TuUy  in  his  usual  way,  but  as  they  stand 
in  the  book  itself. 

"But  what  if  the  reason  for  this  change  appear  plainly 
from  the  passage  itself?  Por  the  Apostle  in  the  ninth  verse 
had  considered  man  as  here  represented,  in  that  State  in 
which  he  was  before  he  received  the  law.  Then  in  the 
foUowing  verses  to  the  fourteenth,  he  shews  the  event,  that 
is,  what  had  happened  to  hini  in  conseqvience  of  having 
received  the  law,  namely,  that  by  the  law  he  became  guilty 
of  a  greater  offence,  and  subject  to  a  severer  punishment. 
So  far  then  it  was  requisite  that  the  Apostle  should  use  the 
past  tense.  But  at  the  fourteenth  verse  he  shews  the  reason 
Avhy  the  consequences  of  the  law  were  different  from  what  it 
had  intended.  The  nature  of  the  law,  he  says,  is  different 
from  that  of  the«men  who  are  under  the  law,  &c.  Now  it 
would  have  been  improper  that  the  Apostle,  explaining  a  case 
even  then  existing,  should  speak  in  the  past  time,  er  say, 
'  The  law  was  spiritual,  but  I  was  carnal.'  How  much  more 
fit  was  it  to  use  the  present : — 'The  law  is  spiritual,  but  I 
am  carnal,^  as  will  readily  appear  to  every  one  who  attentively 
Diss.  p.  considers  the  matter."  To  this  Dr.  Tully  replies :  "  As  far 
'  ■  as  regards  the  former  clause  of  the  sentence,  it  would  not 
become  St.  Paul  to  speak  unmeaningly,  since  the  law  not 
only  was,  but  is  always  spiritual.  No  one  but  a  trifler  could 
say,  I  Svas^  a  man,  yet  it  was  very  fitting  for  St.  Paul  to  say 
I  '  am'  carnal,  because,  in  a  manner,  and  in  a  certain  sense, 
he  always  was  such." 

Dr.  Tully  therefore  acknowledges  the  reason  to  be  seif- 
evident, why  St.  Paul,  when  speaking  of  the  law,  should  use 
the  present  tense,  and  that  he  could  not  have  spoken  other- 
wise  with  any  meaning.  But  in  his  reply  coucerning  the 
latter  clause  of  the  sentence,  how  miserably  (begging  his 
pardou)  does  he  himself  trifle !  In  truth  tlie  question  here 
is  not  in  what  sense  St.  Paul  called  the  person  there  described 
'carnal,'  (that  comes  on  afterwards,)  but  why  the  Apostle 
should  have  chauged  the  tense  in  both  clauscs,  and  now 
spcaks  in  the  present.     The  reason,  wc  assert,  is  evident ;  it 


Phrases,  '  to  he  carnal,'  '  to  walk  after  the  flesh.'      379 

was  not  proper  that  tlie  Apostle,  when  explaining  an  existing   s  E  c  T. 

case,  sliould  use  tlie  past  tense :    on  the  contrary,  it  was ]^ 

actually  neeessary  for  liim  to  speak  in  the  present.  For  this 
sole  reason  we  contend  that  St.  Paul  said,  not  that  the  law 
'was/  but  'is^  spmtual,  and  for  the  same  reason,  not  that  I 
*  was/  but  that  I  '  am'  carnal,  and  so  likewise  in  the  foUow- 
ing  Verses.  What  has  Dr.  Tully  alleged  to  invalidate  this 
reason  ?  Nothing  whatever. 

§  16.  In  the  tenth  section  of  the  same  chapter,  I  have  p.  101. 
refuted,  by  means  of  another  argument,  their  opinion  who 
interpret  this  chapter  of  the  Romans  from  ver.  14,  of  St.  Paul 
himself  in  his  regenerate  state,  and  I  have  shewn  that  this 
opinion  makes  the  Apostle's  reasoning  unconnected  and  con- 
tradietory  to  itself.  This  general  view  I  have  illustrated  and 
confirmed  by  many  instances,  of  which  the  first  is  as  follows : 
"  Of  the  man  here  described  it  is  said,  '  I  am  carnal.'  But  of  ver.  14. 
the  regenerated,  'he  walks  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  Rom. 8.1. 
Spirit.'  "  To  this  Dr.  Tully  answers  :  "  As  if,"  he  says,  "  'to  be 
carnal,'  (or  as  the  Apostle  means,  to  have  a  carnal  nature,) 
and  'to  walk  after  the  flesh'  were  equivalents,  which  are 
things  far  and  far  asunder.  Another  begging  of  the  question  !  itemm  t6 
The  Apostle  by  no  means  walked  after  the  flesh ;  and  yet  he  *"  "'''^^ 
said  with  truth,  'I  am  carnal.'  I  will  shew  how,  if  the 
neeessary  distinction  be  kept  in  mind,  this  is  quite  piain. 
For  a  man  is  said  to  be  carnal,  viewed  either  according  to 
the  Law  or  the  Gospel :  according  to  the  former,  the  hobest 
man  on  earth  will  be  carnal,  because  whatever  the  grace  of 
holiness  may  eff'ect,  he  does  not  in  any  way  come  up  to  the 
spirituaHty  of  the  law,  (so  to  speak,)  which  abominates  all 
sin  and  calls  it  flesh."  To  which  I  reply,  Ist,  'To  be 
carnal,'  and  '  to  walk  after  the  flesh,'  are  indeed  diflerent  ex- 
pressions :  but  only  so  far  as  this,  that  the  former  signifies, 
if  I  may  so  say,  the  habit  of  carnality,  the  latter  has  more 
reference  to  carnal  actions  and  deeds.  But  whoever  is 
carnal,  walks  after  the  flesh,  and  vice  versa.  2ndly,  It  is  very 
easy  for  the  Doctor  to  coin  minute  distinctions  whenever  he 
pleases,  which  may  appear  quite  clear  to  himself,  and  which 
are  actually  neeessary  for  supporting  his  own  hypothesis. 
But  I  contend  that  Scripture  phrases  must  be  explained  by 
Scripture,  and  not  according  to  his  fancy  or  use  of  them : 


380  Corinthians  why  called  carnal. 

s  E  C  T.  and  therefore  I  ask^  wliere  is  a  truly  religious  mau,  not  to  say 
iir: most  holy,  such  as  St.  Paul  was,  described  in  tlie  Holy  Scrip- 


tures  as  '  carnal/  with  respect  to  his  affections  ?  Many  of 
the  Corinthians  indeed  are  called  carnal  b}^  St.  Paul  by 
reason  of  their  imperfect  knowledge,  and  because  they  were 

1  Cor.  3. 1.  unskilled  in  the  knowledge  of  the  mysteries  of  the  Gospel, 
(Avhich  sense  of  the  word  is  foreign  to  the  present  sub- 
jectj)  and  many  of  them  also  on  account  of  the  carnal 
aflections  predominating  in  them :  as  indeed  there  always 
have  been,  and  always  Avill  be  too  many,  under  the  very 
law  of  the  spirit  of  life,  who  serve  the  flesh.  Such  do  those 
of  the  Corinthians  appear  to  have  beeu,  who  are  rebuked  by 
the  Apostle  in  the  third  verse  of  the  aboAe-mentioned  chapter. 
"For  whereas,"  he  says,  "there  is  among  you  envying  and 
strife,  and  diAasions,  are  ye  not  carnal,  and  Avalk  as  men  ?" 
*  Strifes,  envyings,  dinsions,'  the  Apostle  elsewhere  enume- 
rates  amongst  the  woi'ks  of  tlie  flesh  which  of  a  certaiuty 

Gal.  5.20.  exclude  a  man  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  there- 
fore the  proof  in  this  place  is  from  the  effects.  For 
since  emulations,  contention,  schism,  are  fruits  of  the  flesh, 
it  is  certain  that  wherever  they  are  seen,  there  their  root 
must  be  floiuishing.  These  sins  prevailed  amongst  man}' 
of  the  Corinthians :  hence  the  Apostle  convinces  them 
of  being  carnal.  There  were  also  some  among  the  Corinth- 
ians, who,  on  account  of  other  works  of  the  flesh,  might 
most  justly  be  called  carnal :  as  those,  for  instance,  who  were 

1  Cor.  11.  addicted  to   drunkenness,  and  that  too   at  the   IIolv  Com- 

2  Cor.  12.  iiiunion,  and  to  fornication  and   other  dreadful  irapurities. 
20, 21.      But    granting   that    some  truly   religious   Corinthians,   who 

were  as  yet  but  beginners  in  religion,  Avere  called  carnal  by 
St.  Paul,  by  reason  of  their  aflections,  yet  we  still  have  to 
search  for  a  passage  of  Scripture  where  the  word  '  carnaF  is 
received  in  such  a  sense  as  to  apply  to  St.  Paul  himself,  a 
man  of  wonderful  holiness,  who  had  rebuked  the  Corinthians 
for  the  very  reason  that  they  were  carnal.  Dr.  Tully  con- 
tends  that  from  the  text  itself  it  is  clear  that  the  word  must 
be  taken  in  this  sense,  for  he  argues  as  follows  from  the 
Apostle's  words,  '  The  law  is  spii'itual,  but  I  am  carnal :' 
"This  carnality  which  he  here  speaks  of,  is  plainly  opposed 
to  the  spirituality,  or  in  common  languago,  the  pcrfcction  of 


Use  of  ihe  terms  '  carnal'  '  spirifi/a/.'  381 

the  law.     And  wlio  is  there,  I  ask,  tliat  will  dare  to  profess  S  E  C  T. 

TV 

himself  to  be  free  from  it  wliile  lie  is  on  earth  ?     When  he '-^ — - 

looks  on  that  law  so  awful  from  its  puritv,  who  will  not 
exclaim  witli  the  holy  Apostle^  '  T  am  carnal  ?' "  But  here 
again  Dr.  Tullj,  witli  no  text  of  Scripture  and  no  authority 
of  any  ancient  ecclesiastical  writer  to  back  him  up,  puts  a 
new  Interpretation  on  the  word  '  spiritua?  according  to  Ins  irvevßaTi- 
own  fancy,  as  he  also  gives  a  meaniug  warranted  by  no 
example  to  the  word  '  carnal.'  For  who  has  ever  fonnd  (rapKiKh^ 
that  word,  used  by  any  author  of  sufficient  authority,  to  mean 
the  '  rigour'  of  the  law?  doubtless  the  law  is  here  called  ä/cpi^eio 
Spiritual  because  it  commands  a  spiritual  manner  of  life,  and 
requires  that  we  should  walk  after  the  Spirit,  mortifying  and 
crucifying  the  desires  and  affections  of  the  flesh  :  and  hence 
the  spiritual  law  is  opposed  to  carnal  man,  that  is,  to  man 
given  up  to  the  desires  of  the  flesh.  Which  Opposition  is 
presently  explained  more  clearly  by  St.  Paul,  in  these  words  :  Rom.  8.  r. 
"  Because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  for  it  is 
not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be.^^  Every 
one  must  see  that  the  passages  are  equivalent :  for  as  here, 
'the  carnal  mind/  so  in  the  passage  under  renew,  'the 
carnal  man,^  so  called  on  account  of  the  desire  of  the  flesh,  is 
altogether  opposed  to  the  law  of  God.  And  to  shew  the 
exact  agreement  of  the  passages,  as  what  is  said  in  Rom.  viii. 
7,  namely,  that  '  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God  and 
cannot  be  subject  to  the  law  of  God/  is  added  as  a  reason  for 
what  had  just  gone  before  in  verse  6,  namely,  'to  be  carnally 
minded  is  death,'  so  these  words  in  Rom.  \äi.  14,  'the  law  is 
spiritual  but  I  am  carnal,'  are  joined  on  to  the  thirteenth 
verse  as  the  reason  for  what  had  been  said  there, '  that  a  good 
law  had  been  made  death'  or  'had  Avorked  death  by  sin.' 
In  both  places  the  Apostle's  meaning  is  clearly  the  same  : 
namely,  that  the  majority  of  men  incur  the  death  threatened 
by  the  law,  not  from  the  fault  of  the  law,  but  from  their  own 
sin,  because  they  are  carnal,  and  of  that  disposition  which  is 
most  repugnant  to  a  spiritual  law,  and  which  is  unable  to  be 
subject  to  it.  What  can  be  plainer  than  this  ?  and  thereforc 
from  this  Opposition  between  the  spiritual  law  and  carnal 
man,  we  gain  this  irrefragable  argument  against  our  oppo- 
nents.     The   person   of   whom    the  Apostle    is    speaking   in 


382  Argument  from  phr eise  '  sold  iinto  sin,' 

S  E  C  T.   Rom.  vii.  14.  is  called  '  camal^  because  he  is  of  tliat  dispositioii 


IX 


which  is  plainly  repugnant  to  that  spiritual  manner  of  life 

which  the  law  enjoins,  and  Avhich  is  unable  to  be  subject  to 

the  law  of  God  which  commands  such  a  life  :  whence  he  is 

Said  to  have  slain  himself ;  biit  this  does  not  apply  to  a  re- 

generate  or  truly  religious  man :  therefore  the  Apostle  is  not 

speaking  in  this  verse  of  a  regenerate  or  truly  religious  person. 

§  17.  In  the  same  section  I  have  drawn  the  following  ar- 

gument  from  ver.  14 :  the  person  there  described  is  said  to 

be  'sold  unto  sin/  a  metaphor  taken  from  those   who    are 

sold  and  entirely  dehvered  up  to  the  power  of  some  master, 

1  Kings     and  plainly  the  same  expression  as  is  used  of  Ahab,  who  is 

described  as  being  the  worst  of  men,  as  well  as  kings,  in 

iirpie-q       which  passage  the   Septuagint  version  has  'he  was  sold  to 

Zm!11x„  work  wickedness.'     But  of  the  regenerate  it  is    said,  that 

Rom. 6.18.  'being  made  free  from  sin,  he  became  the  servant  of  righte- 

ousness.'    Dr.  Tully^s  answer  to  this  is,  that  "we  must  by  all 

means  distinguish  between  a  voluntary  slave,  and  one  com- 

pelled  to  be  a  slave :  that  it  is  one  thing  to  be  sold  unto  sin, 

another  to  seil  oneself."     A  most  unhappy  way  of  getting 

out  of  the  difficulty  :  as  if  indeed  any  one  could  become  the 

servant  of  sin  against  his  own  will.     For  surely  as  there  is 

no  sin  that  is  not  voluntary,  so  no  one  can  become  the  slave 

of  sin  except  voluntarily :  no  one  is  sold  unto  sin  who  has 

not  sold  himself.     Damascene,  in  treating  of  this  passage, 

De  Fid.     bcautifully  explains  the  point.     "  The  Suggestion  of  the  evil 

lib.  i\°  cap.  *^^^'  *^^^  ^^>  *^^  ^^^^  ®^  ^^^^'  entering  the  members  of  our 

22.  [vol.  i.  flesh,  makes  its   attacks  upon  us  through  the  flesh.      For 
p.  292.1  . 

having  once  wiUingly  transgressed  the  law  of  God,  and  ad- 

mitting  the  Suggestion  of  the  devil,  we  give  him  an  opening, 

and  are  sold  by  ourselves  unto  sin :  and  so  our  body  is  easily 

led  into  it.'^ 

Mor.  Reg.      In  the  same  way,  St.  Basil :  "  He  who  is  drawn  into  sin 

433  "cdit^  against  his  will  ouglit  to  consider  that  he  is  overcome  by 

Parisi637.  somc  othcr  sin  already  existing  in  him :  and  that  willingly 

25.5.]         ser\ing  that,  he  is  afterwards  led  on  by  it  to  those  which  he 

would  not."     To  prove  his  rule,   St.  Basil  quotes  directly 

Roni.7.14.  the  words  of  the  Apostle.     "For  we  know   that   the   law 

is  spiritual,  but  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin."     Therefore  it 

is  in  vain  for  Dr.  Tullv  so  scriouslv  to  warn  his  reader  of 


used  by  the  Hehreivs  of  profligate  sinners.  383 

tlie  discrepancy  between  the  Septuagint  and  Hebrew  text,  s  E  C  T. 
in  the  passage    quoted   above^    and   to    accuse   me    of  un- 


fairness  in  quoting  it^  as  he  does  in  the  following  way :  ^j  20^^ 
"  It  is  wonderful/'  he  sajs,  "  that  the  '  Dissertator'  should  p.  I6. 
so  use  the  passage,  (though  sotne  few  others  have  done 
so,)  for  although  the  Septuagint  version  is,  ^  he  was  sold/  eVpaeTj 
yet  whoever  will  look  to  the  Ilebrew  word,  he  will  see  i-iaonn 
that  it  agrees  with  our  English  version,  '  he  sold  himself,' 
which  circumstance  ought  not  to  have  been  passed  over  by 
one  desirous  of  truth :  for  such  a  course  savours  rather  of  a 
desire  for  victory  in  the  dark  than  for  Divine  truth."  But 
however  he  may  despise  the  youthful  Harmonist,  I  should 
have  thought  that  the  version  of  the  seventy  interpreters, 
■wdth  two  others  besides  them,  who  certainly  had  not  studied 
the  Hebrew  original  carelessly,  might  have  had  some  weight 
with  him.  But  what  is  he  contending  for  ?  really  nothing  ! 
for  as  I  have  said  before,  'to  be  sold  to  sin,'  and  'to  seil 
oneself,'  come  to  one  and  the  same  thing.  If,  however, 
Dr.  Tully  had  enquired  wliere  the  expression  '  sold  imto 
sin,'  (taken  passively,)  was  used  in  our  sense,  he  might  have 
been  referred  to  the  first  book  of  Maccabees,  i.  15.  where 
the  writer  thus  speaks  of  certain  most  wicked  Jews.  "  And 
made  themselves  uncircumcised,  and  forsook  the  holy  cove- 
nant,  and  joined  themselves  to  the  heathen,  and  '  were  sold 
to  do  mischief.'"  It  matters  not,  that  tlie  book  is  apocryphal : 
since  in  a  question  concerning  the  genuino  sense  of  an  ex- 
pression in  use  among  the  Hebrews,  no  one  in  his  senses 
will  deny  that  a  Hebrew  author,  writing  in  Hebrew,  (as 
Jerome  bears  witness,)  an  ancient  one,  and  much  esteemed 
in  the  ancient  Christian  Church,  and  even  allowed  a  place  in 
the  sacred  canon  itself,  by  many  of  the  ancients,  no  one,  I 
say,  will  deny  that  such  an  one  ought  to  be  reckoned  a  com- 
petent  judge.  Now  from  this  passage,  compared  Mith  that 
in  1  Kings  xxi.  20,  it  appears  that  the  ancient  Jews  were  in 
the  habit  of  designating  a  ver}^  profligate  sinner,  by  this,  as 
it  were,  proverbial  expression,  'he  was  sold  unto  sin,'  or 
'sold  himself.'  Who  therefore  will  believe  (excepting  those 
who  are  ready  to  believe  whatever  they  wish)  that  the  Apo- 
stle  Paul,  a  Jew,  and  using  on  all  occasions  Jewish  expres- 
sions,  should  have  used  this  phrase  in  a  discourse  directed  to 


384^  Calvin  oii  the  passage. 

S  R  C  T,  Jews,  (ver.  1 J  in  such  a  sense  as  tliat  it  niiglit  be  applied  to  a 
— —  regenerate  and  truly  religions,  and  even  a  very  lioly  person  ? 


Surely  with  justice  may  we  say,  in  Dr.  Tully's  own  words, 
Diss.p.30.  "Let  US  searcli  the  Scriptures,  and  beware,  lest  we  be  found 
rebellious  against  the  light." 

§  18.  It  will  be  Seen  what  irrefragable  arguments  have 
been  deduced  from  this  fourteenth  verse,  in  support  of  our 
opinion :  we  Avill  add,  however,  to  these,  the  foUowing  fact : 
that  even  Calvin,  and  Beza  after  him,  with  raany  other  re- 
formed  divines  who  adopted  Calvin's  teaching,  although 
they  agree  with  Dr.  TuUy  in  the  Interpretation  of  the  follow- 
ing  Verses,  are  yet  forced  to  acknowlcdge,  from  the  case 
being  so  evident,  that  the  whole  of  the  fourteenth  verse 
must  be  interpreted  of  an  unregenerate  person,  and  therefore 
that  the  Apostle  begins  to  speak  of  himself  as  regenerate,  in 
the  fifteenth  verse.  Calvin's  remarks  on  the  passage  are  as 
follow  :  "  Now,"  he  says,  "  he  begins  to  contrast  in  a  greater 
degree  the  law  and  man's  nature,  that  it  may  be  more  clearly 
seen  whence  arises  the  fault  of  death.  And  afterwards,  he 
brings  forward  the  example  of  a  regenerate  person."  And 
again.  "  He  gives  a  bare  comparison  between  nature  and 
the  law :  since  there  is  uo  greater  difference  in  human 
things,  than  that  of  the  spirit  and  the  flesh.  The  law  is  spi- 
ritual :  man  is  carnal.  What  argument  therefore  can  there 
be  between  man's  natui^e  and  the  law  ?  between  light  and 
darkness."  And  again,  "  Men  in  their  natural  state,  and  as 
long  as  they  retain  their  natural  dispositions,  are  called 
carnal,  for  inasmuch  as  they  are  vicious  so  they  have  no 
thoughts  or  aspirations  but  what  are  gross  and  earthly." 
Lastly,  he  thus  explains  the  words,  '  sold  under  sin.'  "  This 
particle  shews  what  the  flesh  can  do  by  itself.  For  man  by 
natvu'e  is  no  less  the  slave  of  sin  than  are  purchased  slaves, 
who  are  used  by  their  masters  as  they  will,  just  as  they  do 
their  very  beasts.  The  notion  of  conipulsion  must  be  alwaj's 
excepted  :  we  sin  voluntarily,  nor  would  it  l)e  sin  were  it 
not  voluntary.  Wherefore  the  above  similc  must  not  be 
taken  to  favour  the  idea  of  a  compulsory  scrvitude,  but  of 
willing  Submission."  What  can  be  plainer  tliau  this,  against 
the  Doctor's  trifling  distinction  between  the  voluntary  and 
the  forced  slave  of  sin  ? 


Beza,  Areiius.  385 

But  on  ver.  15.  Cahdn  tlms   comments  :    ^' He  now  pro-  SECT. 

ceeds  to  the  more  particular  example  of  man  in  his  regenerate IJ . 

State/'  &c.     In  tlie  same  way  Beza,  in  his  notes  on  tlie  pas- 
sage  :    "  The  cause   of  this  is  because  the  law   clemands   a 
heavenly  purity:   but  men,  such  as  they  are  born,  are  the 
slaves  of  corruption,  which  they  roluntarily  serve."     And  so 
on  the  fifteenth  verse  :    "  From  the  seventh  to  the  fifteentli 
verse  he  is  shewing  the  use  of  the  law  in  the  unregenerate." 
Ai'etius   (not  to  niention  others  who  have  followed  Calvin) 
interprets    the    passage    in   the    same    way,    explaining   the 
Apostle's  words  '  sold  under  sin/  by  '  being  in  its  absolute  iiiius  pie- 
possession.'     "Whatever   reasons   however   induced   thera   to  "i^'iun"^" 
interpret  the  fourteenth  verse  of  an  unregenerate  person, 
they  surely  were  bound  by  the  same  reasons  to  do  so  in  the 
following  verses.     They  were  obliged,  in  fact,  to  acknowledge 
that  the  Apostle  is  not  speaking  of  a  regenerate  person  in  the 
fourteenth  verse,  first,  because  the  words  of  that  verse  are  con- 
nected with  the  preceding  one,  and  CAddently  contain  the  cause 
of  what  is  Said  there :  and  it  is  quite  piain  that  the  Apostle 
is  not  speaking  there  of  a  regenerate  person :  and  secondly 
because  such  expressions  as  '  to  be  carnal,'  and  '  sold  under 
sin,'  cannot  in  any  way  be  applied  in  their  Scriptural  mean- 
ing  to  a  regenerate  person.     Hoav  is  it  then  tliat  they  did 
not  see  that  the  same  arguments  prove  that  the  following 
verses  must  not  be  interpreted  of  a  regenerate  person  ?     For 
the  first  words  of  the  fifteenth  verse  are  evidently  connected 
with  the  fourteenth,  by  the  causative  particle   'for.'     Aiul 
then,  do  not  such  expressions  as  are  used  of  the  person  de- 
scribed  in  the  following  verses,  namely,  that  '  with  the  flesh  ver.  2.5. 
he  serves  the  law  of  sin'  and  that  ^le  is  led  captive  to  the  ver.  23. 
law  of  sin/  mean  the  same  thing  as  'being  carnal'  and  'sohl 
under  sin  V     It  is  also  to  be  observed  that  Dr.  Tully's  argu- 
raent,  in  support  of  his  opinion,  drawn  fi'ora  the  change  of 
the  past  into  the  present  tensc,  and  which  he  sets  such  liigh 
value  upon  as  to  pronounce  "that  it  would  of  itself  not  only  Ui.ss.p.ik 
press  hard  upon,  but  overwhelm  his  opponents,"  goes  for 
nothing  evcn  in  the  judgment  of  Calviu,  Beza,  and  other  re- 
formed  divincs.     For  this  change  of  tcnsc  first  occurs  in  the 
fourteenth  verse,  which  verse,  thesc  divincs  contend,  is  not 
to  be  interpreted  of  a  regenerate  person. 

BULL.  C    c 


386  Parceus'  arguments  discussed. 

s  E  c  T.       §  19.  In  the  twelfth  section  I  have  discussed  the  argu- 
— i^: —  ments  brought  forward  by  Parseus,  in  support  of  tlie  opposite 


opinion,  in  bis  explanation  of  the  seventh  cbapterf  of  tbe 
Romans,  tbe  first  of  wbicb  is,  "  It  is  evident  tbat  tbe  Apostle 
is  speaking  of  bimself  and  not  of  another,  because  he  continues 
to  lament  over  bis  own  state,  using  the  first  person  through 
all  tbe  twelve  verses,  'I  am  carnal/"  &c.  I  answer:  Every 
one  in  any  degree  acquainted  with  St.  PauFs  Epistles,  must 

ixiTa<xxri-  be  aware  that  this  change  of  person  is  a  very  favourite  way 
Ol  bis  expressmg  m  bis  own  person  the  state  or  circumstances 
of  others.  In  proof  of  which  the  following  passages  are 
referred  to;  1  Cor.  iv.  3,  4;  compared  with  verse  6;  Rom.  iii.  7; 
1  Cor.  vi.  12,  15,  and  x.  23,  29,  30;  Gal.  ii.  18. 
Dr.  Tully,  with  some  rbetorical  effusions  as  usual,  by  way 

Diss.p.i8.  of  preface,  answers  this  in  the  following  manner.  "Let  the 
reader  consider,  and  remember  what  an  office  he  has  taken 
upon  himself,  namely,  to  prove  the  asseiüon  '  that  St.  Paul 
in  other  passages  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  person,  in  a 
way  which  is  very  far  from  applying  to  a  holy  man.^  This  is 
the  task  he  has  undertaken.  Let  us  therefore  look  to  the 
passages,  and  every  one  will  see  how  well  they  answer  this 
description.^'  But  I  am  not  aware  what  right  Dr.  Tully  has 
for  imposing  tasks  on  the  Harmonist  at  pleasm-e.  For  where, 
I  ask,  are  these  words  to  be  found  which  Dr.  Tully  takes 
care  to  print  in  italics  as  the  Harmonist^s  very  own,  "  that 
St.  Paul  in  other  passages  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  per- 
son, in  a  way  which  by  no  means  applies  to  a  holy  man  ?" 
My  words  are,  "  that  this  change  of  person  is  a  very  favomite 
way  of  the  Apostle's  of  expressing  in  bis  o^vn  person  the  State 
or  circumstances  of  others.^^  And  do  not  the  passages  I  have 
quoted  prove  this  ?  AATiy,  Dr.  Tully  himself  allows  it !  It  is 
quite  certain,  besides,  that  in  one  of  these  passages  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  himself  in  tbe  first  person  in  a  way  very  far  from 
applying  to  a  holy  man.  For  in  Rom.  iii.  7.  he  says  :  "  For 
if  the  truth  of  God  hath  more  abounded  through  my  He  unto 
His  glory,  why  yet  am  I  also  judged  as  a  siuner  ?"  He  calls 
the  *  infidehty'  or  incredulity  of  the  Jews  a  he,  of  which  he 
had  spoken  in  the  third  verse ;  and  he  made  use  of  the  word 
*  lie/  on  account  (as  Estius  rightly  observes)  of  its  Opposition 
to  the  '  truth'  of  God.     '  To  abouud  in  glory,'  is  '  to  become 


The  figure  of  a  change  of  persans .  387 

more  conspicuous/     The  meaning  of  the  whole  passage  is,  K  s  E  c  T. 

the  truth  of  God  has  become  more  conspicuous  and  glorious l_l_ 

(namely,  in  the  ealling  of  the  Gentiles)  through  my  incre- 
duHty  who  am  an  unbeheving  Jew,  by  Avhat  right  shall  this 
increduhty  of  mine  be  punished  by  God  ?  consequently  the 
Apostle,  as  in  the  seventh  chapter  so  here^  is  sustaining  the 
character  of  the  Jews,  and  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  per- 
son,  in  a  way  which  is  far  from  applying  to  a  holy  man. 
For  he  speaks  of  the  infidelity  of  the  Jews  in  his  own  person, 
from  which  sin  he  himself  nevertheless  was  most  clear. 
Dr.  Tully,  by  not  attending  to  the  design  of  the  passage  and 
the  context,  seems  to  have  thought  that  the  word  'lie'  was  to 
be  taken  here  in  its  strict  and  proper  meaning,  namely,  a 
dehberate  declaration  of  what  is  nntrue,  and  that  St.  Paulis 
opponents  had  falsely  accused  him  of  such  a  lie.  A  mere 
dream ! 

§  10.  In  the  next  section,  to  the  objection  brought  for-  p.  103. 
ward  by  Parseus,  that  "  a  change  of  persons  is  found  in 
Scripture,  and  that  in  any  passage  where  it  occurs  its  mean- 
ing is  always  piain  from  the  context,  but  that  here  it  is  by 
no  means  so,"  I  have  replied  as  follows  :  "  Surely  if  it  is  piain 
in  any  passage,  it  is  doubly  piain  here.     For  not  to  mention 
the    arguments    akeady   brought    for  ward    which    actually 
require  this  figure,  the  Apostle  when  wishing  to  answer  the 
objection  that  the  law  is  the  cause  of  sin,  and  so  to  shew  that 
so  far  from  being  the  cause,  it  alone  accurately  and  fairly 
laid  open  the  nature  of  sin  ;  he  says  '  that  he  should  not 
have  known  sin,  but  by  the  law,^  and  '  that  once  when  he 
was  without  the  law  he  did  not  know  it : '  surely  this  '  being  x^p^^ 
without  the  law,'  denotes  in  the  Apostle's  writings  the  state  "  '"'"' 
and  condition  of   Gentiles  or  of  those  who  are  vrithout   a 
written  law,  as  it  is  opposed  to  those  who  hve  under  the 
dispensation  of  a  law.     For  to  live  'without  law,'  and  to 
live   '  lawlessly,'  or  '  lawless,'  mean  the   same  thing.     Now  &voixov 
the  Apostle  surely  was  never  without  a  law :  inasmuch  as  he  ""  'tT^ 

.  .  .  See  Rom. 

was  a  Jew  by  birth,  a  disciple  of  Gamaliel  from  his  child-  2.i2;iCor. 
hood,  and  one  who  had  imbibed  the  teaching  of  the  law  "^'  '^*^' "  * 
with  his  mother's  milk.     It  is  necessary  therefore  for  us  to 
suppose  that  the  Apostle  wished  to  represent  in  his  own 
person  the  state   of  tlie  Jews :    in  the  first  place,   such  as 

c  c  2 


388 


;S^/.  Pmd's  meaning  qf '  withoui  the  laiv.' 


Sov^evov- 

TOS  T^ 

inrodeffei 


SECT.  they  were,  'without  the  law/  i.  e.  'before  the  law  was  given 

— —  them : '  and    then   as   they  Avere   '  when  the  commandment 

came,  after  the  law  was  given/  And  if  he  begau  bis  argu- 
ment  witli  this  change  of  person,  what  reason  is  there  to 
induce  us  to  believe  that  he  did  not  continue  it  in  the 
following  verses?"  I  have  quoted  the  entire  paragrapb 
that  the  reader  might  the  more  clearly  see  how  Dr.  Tully 
"  backs  out"  of  the  matter.  For  what  is  bis  answer  to  it  ? 
Diss.p.  19.  "I  confess/'  be  says^  ''that  the  passage  is  difficult,  and  one 
which  allows  the  curious  plenty  of  room  for  the  exercise  of 
tbeir  intellect :  every  one  is  welcome^  as  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned,  to  bis  own  interpretation  of  it,  so  that  be  does  not  deny 
that  St.  Paul  is  speaking  concerning  bimself :  for  there  is  no 
necessity  for  doing  this."  Tliis  is  just  as  mucb  as  saying,  I 
confess  I  am  not  able  to  give  any  certain  answer  to  this 
argument,  but  I  never  will  acknowledge  that  St.  Paul  is  not 
bere  speaking  of  bimself.  A  great  man  bas  truly  said,  'that 
no  slavery  is  so  miserable  as  that  of  being  a  slave  to  an 
opinion.'  Dr.  Tully  bowever  bas  made  the  difficulty  of  this 
passage  bis  screen,  that  be  might  escape  unseen  in  the  dark- 
ness  of  which  be  himself  was  the  cause.  The  noon-day  sun 
is  darkness  to  bim  who  shuts  bis  e}^es  and  will  not  see  it : 
and  so  and  in  no  other  way  is  this  passage  obscure.  Is  it 
difficult  to  see  what  St.  Paul  means  by  '  witbout  the  law?^  It 
is  clear  from  the  passages  already  noted,  that  be  constantly 
expresses  by  this  pbi'ase  tbeir  condition  who  are  without  a 
written  law.  Is  it  difficult  to  find  out  wbetber  St.  Paul  bim- 
self was  ever  without  a  written  law  ?  Least  of  all  men,  for  be 
was  born  under  the  laAv,  and  imbibed  its  teaching  with  bis 
mother^s  milk.  What  then  follows,  but  that  the  Apostle  is 
not  speaking  in  this  passage  of  himself,  but  of  another ;  which 
was  to  be  proA'ed.  Dr.  Tully  bowever  presently  takes  courage, 
and  attempts  to  explain  this  difficult  passage  in  the  following 
manner :  "  I  indeed  agree  to  tbeir  opinion,  who  do  not  un- 
derstand  by  the  passage  a  law  in  its  primary  meaning,  but 
in  a  relative  sense,  namely,  one  but  little  efficacious  to  the 
conscience  of  the  unregenerate,  and  not  comprehended  in  its 
due  Spiritual  and  intimate  meaning :  wliicb  is  the  same  case 
in  eftcct  as  if  there  were  no  law  :  not  that  there  is  actually  no 
law,  but  because  it  does  not  exercise  its  power,  fis  if  it  really 


Rechnen  of  Dr.  TuUy's  philüsophy.  389 

did  not  exist/^     To  pass  over  tlie  eross  solecism  in  these  s  E  C  T. 

.            •                        •               IX 
words,  (caused,  as  I  suppose^  by  their  ha\^ng  been  ^vritten ^^— 


in  too  great  haste,)  I  cannot  help  regretting  tlie  total 
want  of  straightfonvardness  in  the  Doctor.  He  here 
brings  forward  the  very  answer  of  Parseus,  which  he  must 
know  I  had  completely  refuted  in  the  Harmony,  which  li.  Diss. 
passage  I  beg  the  careful  reader  to  examine,  and  judge  ^^^.^  {J^' 
for  himself.  Dr.  TuUy  therefore,  not  trusting  in  this  inter- 
pretation.  again  advises  his  reader  to  dismiss  our  argument 
as  of  no  value,  and  to  hold  unflinchingly  to  the  conclusion 
that  St.  Paul  is  here  speaking  of  himself.  For  he  thus  closes 
his  answer :  "  As  far  as  onr  present  purpose  is  concerned, 
there  does  not  seem  any  great  necessity  to  trouble  ourselves 
much  about  the  raeaning  of  the  passage,  so  long  as  we  firmly 
hold  that  St.  Paul  is  speaking  of  himself."  What  use  there- 
fore  is  it  to  argue  with  an  Opponent  so  bound  down  to  an 
opinion  ?  he  must  have  the  pleasure  of  keeping  to  his  own 
judgment. 

§  21.  Dr.  TuUy's  answers  to  my  objections  against  Parseus,  Diss. II. ix. 
concerning  the  expressions  of  the  Apostle,  'the  good  that  I  105.1Ö7'' 
would/  and  '  the  evil  that  I  would  not/  are  so  frivolous,  that 
it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  detain  the  reader  by  a  considera- 
tion  of  them :  bcgging  him  however  just  to  compai'e  what  I 
have  Said  with  the  answer  made  to  it,  it  will  be  sufficient 
briefly  to  notice  one  or  two  points.  1.  Dr.  Tully  denies  that 
the  will,  howeAer  perfect,  earnest,  or  firm,  necessarily  pro- 
duces  action :  but,  on  the  contrary,  says  that  daily  experience 
refutes  such  a  notion.  After  so  many  theological  paradoxes, 
what  a  monstrous  piece  of  philosophy  have  we  here  !  For  if 
we  regard  the  actions  which  are  in  our  own  power  (of  which  e>'  ^/u?*/ 
alone  there  can  be  any  question,  since  in  those  not  in  our 
OMTi  power  it  is  not  reckoned  a  fault  not  to  perform  what  we 
wish)  nothing  in  philosophy  is  more  certain  than  that  a 
"  perfect  and  firm  will  necessarily  produces  action. '^  For 
the  ^ill  go\  erns  the  powers  of  the  whole  man :  so  that  Avhat- 
ever  we  are  able  to  do,  and  wish  to  do  with  a  perfect  and 
firm  will,  that  of  necessity  we  really  do.  It  is  usclcss  to 
bring  forward  the  case  of  St.  Peter.  When  St.  Peter  denied 
Christ,  he  did  not  wish  with  a  perfect  will  not  to  deny  Him, 
for  if  he  had,  he  certainly  would  never  have  done  so  :    but 


390        Difference  between  '  willing'  and  '  performing.' 

s  E  c  T.  more  of  this  hereafter.    2ndly.  Dr.  Tally  professes  to  disagree 

— —  "vnth  what  I    said  concerning  the  volition  of  good,  which 

St.  Paul  imputes  to  tlie  person  described  in  tlie  seventh. 
chapter  of  the  Romans,  namely,  that  it  does  not  mean  a 
determined  and  settled  purpose  of  the  mind,  but  only  a 
certain  kind  of  willingness,  an  unstable  and  weak  desire  for 
■what  is  good,  such  as  may  be  found  in  too  many  persons  who 
are  not  good.  I  have  however  confirmed  this  view  by  shew- 
ing  that  the  Apostle  attributes  the  vohtion  of  good  to  the 
person  described  by  him,  in  such  a  way  as  plaiuly  to  take 
away  from  him  all  power  of  performing  what  is  good,  ver. 
16,  18 ;  in  which  latter  verse  I  have  noted  the  antithesis  in 
the  Apostle^s  words,  "  for  to  will  is  present  with  me,  but  how 
to  perform  that  which  is  good  that  I  find  not  -,"  as  if  he  had 
said,  Having  the  knowledge  of  the  law,  and  being  persuaded 
of  its  due  Obligation,  it  is  easy  for  me  to  will  the  good  which 
it  commands  :  but  the  faculty  of  doing  this  is  so  far  from  me, 
that  how  to  perform  it  I  find  not,  inasmuch  as  the  law  of 
sin  which  is  in  my  flesh,  and  under  whose  dominion  I  am,  is 
for  ever  carrjdng  me  away  to  the  contrary.  And  is  this  to  be 
called  a  determined  and  settled  purpose  of  the  mind  ?  is  such 
a  vohtion  of  good  as  this  to  be  considered  the  characteristic 
mark  of  the  regenerate  man  ?  This  is  our  answer  to  Parasus, 
and  we  may  wait  in  vain  for  Dr.  Tully  to  bring  forward  any 
thing  solid  against  it.  Dr.  Tully's  following  remarks  are 
perfectly  astonishing. 

"I  do  not  understand,"  he  says,  "what  he  means  by 
saying  that  the  terms  '  to  will,'  and  '  to  perform,'  are  opposed 
to  one  another,  unless  he  means  that  subordinate  terms  are 
opposites,  (and  if  he  means  that  he  will  never  prove  it,)  for  if 
so,  it  would  foUow  that  a  good  work  is  done  without  the  will, 
notwithstanding  that  the  Avill  is  the  root  and  priuciple  of  all 
moral  action.  Therefore  'to  will'  and  'to  perform'  cannot 
be  opposite  terms."  And  again,  "  If  to  will  and  to  perform 
are  to  be  considered  as  opposite  terms,  not  even  St.  Paul 
himself  could  perform  a  good  work  :  for  the  very  will  of  per- 
forming it  would  prevent  him,  since,  in  opposite  terms,  if  one 
is  granted  the  other  must  be  denied."  It  seems  perfectly 
astonishing  how  such  a  conclusion  could  be  drawn  from  my 
words,  or  rather  the  words  of  Amyraldus,  to  whom  I  referred 


Hatred  ofsinfound  in  the  wicked.  391 

in  the  note  :  they  are  as  follow  :  "  The  Apostle  here  draws  s  E  c  T. 
a  difference  between  '  willing  what  is  good/  and  '  doing  it/ 


ver.  18.  For  these  are  so  distinguished  and  opposed,  as  that  "^  ö^'^^'" 
*to  will'  is  attributed  to  our  faculties,  while  'to  perform'  is  C^adaiKa- 
not  so  by  any  means  :  '  to  will/  signifies  only  a  certain  incli-  ^  " 
uation  or  tendency,  but  not  a  definite,  ansious,  perfect,  or 
settled  will,  for  such  a  will  of  necessity  produees  action." 
My  meaning  is  merely  this  :  the  Apostle  so  distinguishes 
between  and  opposes  the  two  terms  ^to  will'  and  'to  do/  as 
to  allow  the  former  to  the  person  whom  he  is  describing, 
while  he  altogether  denies  that  he  possesses  the  latter ;  and 
thence  it  necessarily  foUows  that  St.  Paul  meant  by  the  ex- 
pression  '  to  wiU  what  is  good/  an  ineflfectual  will,  such  an 
one  as  did  not  lead  to  action.  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than 
this :  and  therefore  what  fair-minded  person  could  impute  to 
me  the  opinion  that  '  to  wiU'  and  '  to  do'  were  simply  and  of 
themselves  opposed  to  one  another,  in  the  same  sense  as 
logicians  speak  of  opposite  terms,  so  that  whoever  wills  what 
is  good,  for  that  very  reason  does  not  do  it :  and  he  who  does 
what  is  good  does  it  unwillingly,  or  as  Dr.  Tully  says,  -ndth- 
out  will  ?  and  yet  these  are  the  absurdities  he  attributes  to 
me.  Surely  that  must  be  blind  charity  which  could  believe 
that  the  Doctor,  while  writing  such  things,  seriously  endea- 
voured  to  keep  to  truth  and  honesty. 

§  22.  My  objections  to  Parseus  touching  the  hatred  of  sin, 
are  replied  to  by  Dr.  TuUy  in  the  following  way.  In  the  first  Diss.p.  24. 
place  he  rejects  the  example  of  Medea,  which  amongst  others 
I  had  brought  forward  to  prove  that  a  certain  kind  of  hatred 
of  sin  may  be  found  even  in  the  greatest  sinners :  "  For  it 
appears,"  says  he,  "that  this  woman  was  notorious  for  her 
wickedness :  and  although  at  intervals  she  struggled  under 
some  sHght  pangs  of  conscience,  (which  may  be  obsei^ed  in 
the  most  desperate  sinners,)  still  it  is  quite  certain,  fi'om 
Euripides  and  Seneca,  that  she  proceeded  resolutely  and  as 
it  were  at  füll  sail  to  her  bloody  deed."  It  is  so,  I  acknow- 
ledge :  but  is  it  not  also  as  certain,  that  a  person  of  this  kind 
is  plainly  described  by  the  Apostle  in  this  chapter  ?  surely  it 
is ;  for  this  man  is  said  '  to  be  sold  under  sin,'  which  expres- 
sion  is  not  commonly  used  in  Holy  Scripture,  except  of  most 
wicked  sinners,  as  I  have  shewn  above.     But  Dr.  Tully  pro- 


392  The  law  of  God  approved  by  the  wicked. 

s  E  c  T.   ceeds :  "  But  this_,"  says  he,  "  the  Apostle  denies  of  him- 

'- —  seif,  when  he  says  that  it  was  not  himself  who  did  the  ill, 

V.  17—20.  which  he  would  not,  but  sin  dwelling  in  him :"  forsooth 
the  reverend  gentleman  seems  to  have  thought  that  the 
Apostle  in  these  verses  excuses  the  man  whom  he  is  describ- 
ing.  But  in  this  he  is  much  niistaken  :  for  St.  Paul  is  not 
endeavouring  to  excuse  sinners  of  any  kind,  not  to  say  him- 
self :  but  the  whole  of  bis  discourse  is  to  justify  the  law,  and 
to  prove  that  the  law  is  not  of  itself  the  cause  of  sin  and 
death,  but  that  it  is  holy,  just,  and  good,  as  appears  from  the 
scope  of  the  whole  passage,  and  especially  from  the  sixteenth 
verse,  "  If  tlien  I  do  that  which  I  would  not  I  consent  unto 
the  law  that  it  is  good."  For  suxely  this  is  the  strongest 
argument  in  vindication  of  the  holiness  of  the  law,  that 
wicked  men  having  the  knowledge  of  the  law,  approve  of  it 
while  tliey  transgress  it,  and  even  wish  to  obey  it  up  to  a 
certain  point,  their  conscience  scourging  them  in  silence  for 
sins  committed  against  it.  The  Apostle's  meaning  therefore 
from  the  seventeenth  to  the  twentietli  verse,  is  plainly  this : 
When  a  carnal  man  imbued  with  a  knowledge  of  the  law 
sins  against  it,  it  is  not  so  much  the  man  himself  who  sins, 
i.  e.  the  mind  of  the  man,  (for  each  man's  mind  is  himself,) 
7h  e-npico-  as  'the  animal  part'  in  him,  which  is  enslaved  to  sin,  and 
which  is  called  in  the  tAventy-third  verse  '  the  law  of  sin  in 
his  members/  whence  it  follows,  that  in  the  opinion  even  of 
the  worst  men,  (in  so  far  as  they  are  men,  and  have  the 
power  of  judgment,)  the  law  of  God  is  holy,  just,  and  good : 
which  the  Apostle  had  undertaken  to  prove. 
Diss.  p.  §  23.  I  next  find  the  following  remarks  :  "  Sensible  men 

24   25  .  .  . 

'  ■  will  be  but  little  disturbed  by  the  populär  pageant  which  the 
Harmonist  gets  up  in  the  following  strain :"  (O  how  cleverly 
II.  Diss.  said !)  "'Great  praise  indeed  to  be  so  regenerate  as  to 
iü6_  '  hate  sin,  when  no  passion  or  excitement  of  appetite  induces 
US  to  commit  it;  but  as  soon  as  the  opportunity  of  doing 
wrong  offers  itself,  and  some  desire  urged  us  to  commit  sin, 
tlien  heartily  to  love  it.'  I  have  quoted  the  whole  passage,  so 
that  no  dispute  may  arise  from  its  being  imperfectly  repre- 
sented.  But  I  wish  he  would  again  consider  how  invidious 
and  inconsistent  it  all  is."  Lct  us,  therefore,  according  to  his 
wish,  rcconsider  the  whole   qucstion.     Dr.  Tully   first   en- 


St.  Peter' s  dental  considered.  393 

quires,  "  "What  words  of  St.  Paul  prove  that  the  person  lie  is  s  E  c  T. 
describing  is    afFectcd   in    such    a  way?"     I    answer,  those 


words  which  speak  of  tlie  man  there  described  as  '  hating 
sin,  and  yet  doing  it,  as  being  brougbt  into  captivity  of  thc 
law  of  sin  in  bis  members,  and,  even  so,  sold  under  sin.'  For 
hence  we  have  thus  argued  in  tbe  Harmony.  "No  onc  p.  106. 
hates  sin  at  the  ver}'  moment  he  is  committing  it.  There- 
fore  all  that  hatred  which  the  man  here  represented  feit 
towards  sin,  must  be  referred  to  that  time  when  either  con- 
cupiscence  had  not  yet  been  excited  by  objects  presented  to 
it,  or  it  liad  not  yet  overcome  the  Opposition  of  the  reason. 
After  concupiscence  prevailcd,  it  follows  as  a  matter  of  course, 
that  as  long  as  it  kept  the  reason  in  its  power,  there  w^as  no 
hatred  of  sin."  Here  follow  the  words,  quoted  by  Dr.  TuUy, 
"  Great  praise,"  &c.,  and  I  leave  it  to  the  judgment  of  learned 
men  to  decide  whether  they  deserve  the  Doctor's  derision 
and  contempt,  as  if  they  were  a  populär  pageant.  Quin- 
tiliau's  hint  seems  to  have  occurred  to  Dr.  Tidly,  namely, 
that  "  insincerity  proceeds  as  far  as  this,  that  what  we 
cannot  refute  by  speaking,  we  may  put  down  by  objections^.'' 
He  presently  cavils  at  my  words,  "  heartily  loves  /'  I  pass 
over  the  extraordinary  syllogism  he  attributes  to  me,  because 
(as  he  truly  observes)  "there  is  no  handhng  such  logic." 
What  he  says  concerning  St.  Peter  deserves  consideration. 
"  ^Mien  Peter,"  he  says,  "  thrice  denied  his  Lord,  did  he 
heartily  love  the  miserable  deed  V  I  answer,  Certainly  he 
did.  "VYhen  St.  Peter  denied  Christ,  he  heartily  loved  his 
sad  deed,  not  as  such,  (not  even  the  greatest  sinner  loves 
sin  as  sin,)  but  as  the  means  of  escaping  death  Avliich  he  was 
dreading,  and  of  saving  his  life.  This  is  cleverly  explained 
by  Bucer,  in  his  Enarration  of  the  seventh  chapter  of  the 
Romans,  where,  after  other  good  remarks,  he  thus  descants 
on  the  case  of  St.  Peter.  "  When  Peter,  Struck  by  the  p.368.edit. 
woman's  question,  denied  Christ,  two  propositions  presented  ^^^  * 
themselves  to  his  mind.  '  Risking  one's  life  must  be  avoided,' 
and  '  the  denial  of  Christ  must  be  avoided :'  in  the  one, 
natui'al  feeling  and  desire  prevailed;  in  the  other,  thc  fcel- 
ing  and  will  of  the  law  and  Spirit  of  God.     When  therefore 

*  "  Hucusque  simulatio  procedit,  ut  quae  dicendo  refiitare  non  possumus  quasi 
fastidicndo  calccnius." 


394  Bucer  on  the  case  of  St.  Peter. 

s  E  c  T.  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  deserted  him,  the  thought  of 

— —  impending  death  prevailed,  while  the  thought  of  denying 


Christ  was  banished :  and  therefore  he  denied  Hirn.  For  to 
the  proposition,  '  The  risking  one's  hfe  must  be  avoided/  he 
added,  '  By  denying  Jesus  you  shall  avoid  this  present  risk  of 
life  :'  and  so  his  conclusion  was,  '  Therefore  Jesus  must  be 
denied/  and  deny  he  did.  The  dehberation  indeed  was 
short :  for  violent  fear  put  a  stop  to  it :  yet,  so  quick  is  the 
Operation  of  the  mind,  this  must  also  have  occurred  to  him : 
( To  deny  Christ,  the  Saviour  and  Son  of  God,  is  perdition/ 
If  now  Peter  could  have  persisted  in  the  thought  that  the 
denial  of  Christ  the  Saviour  must  be  avoided,  he  might  have 
easily  added,  'This  Jesus  is  Christ  your  Saviour/  and  so  with 
his  premises  estabhshed,  his  conclusion  would  have  followed, 
'  Therefore  Jesus  my  Master  must  not  be  denied  -.'  and  thus 
he  would  have  stood  firm  in  his  confession.  And  so  he  did 
both  what  he  was  unwilling  and  what  he  wished  to  do :  what 
he  was  unwilling  to  do,  before  he  was  so  terror-struck  by  the 
impending  danger,  and  ceased  to  think  what  it  was  to  deny 
Christ,  and  when  that  thought  was  brought  back  to  him  by 
his  Lord^s  look,  for  then  he  wept  bitterly  :  what  he  wished 
to  do,  when  he  actually  determined  what  to  answer  the 
damsel :  for  then,  '  The  present  danger  must  be  avoided,' 
prevailed,  and  with  it  the  assumption,  '  By  denying  Jesus 
you  shall  avoid  this :'  therefore  he  concluded,  '  Jesus  must 
be  denied,'  and  denied  Him/'     I  am  not  aware  what  Dr. 

Diss.p.25.  Tully  means  when  he  so  seriously  finds  fault  with  me,  that 
"  because  I  speak  so  contemptuously  of  indwelhng  sin,  that  I 
only  mean  by  it  a  '  certain  kind  of  desire/"  I  am  speaking 
of  actual  sin,  distinguished  from  actual  concupiscence,  ex- 
cited  and  brought  into  action  by  means  of  certain  objects, 
where  I  must  either  speak  of  desire  indefinitely,  or  of  some 
kind  of  desire,  or  of  all,  or  of  none.  I  cannot,  however,  but 
decply  regret  that  Dr.  Tully  has  shewn  throughout  such  a 
desire  to  ca^•il  at  every  thing  I  say,  be  it  ever  so  inoflFensive. 

§  24.  Dr.  Tully  makes  no  answer  of  any  consequence  to 
what  I  had  urged  against  Paraeus,  who  objects  that  'it  is  the 
pecuhai-  privilege  of  the  regenerate  to  consent  to  the  law  of 
God,  and  to  take  dehght  in  it :'  except  that  he  quarreis  with 

fTvi'vSotiai  mc  about  the  meaning  of  the  word  *  dclight.'    " '  To  delight/'' 


Of '  delighüng  in  the  law.'  395 

he  says,  "  is  more  ^orthy  of  the  gravity  of  St.  Paulis  dis-  s  E  c  T. 
course,  than  merely  'to  agree/  and  these  t^o  words  have      ^^ 


never  been  before  confused  by  any  good   Greek    author/'  Diss.p.26. 
The  auswar  to  this  is  easy.     The  phrase^  '  to  delight  in  the  ffw^n^aeai. 
law/  is  in  Scripture  an  aira^  Xeyö/xevov,  and  as  far  as  I  am  "^v  ""'wf 
aware,  is  no  where  to  be  met  with  in  the  heathen  writers. 
But  the  verb,  '  to  dehght  in/  joined  with  other  nouns^  is  of  (TvmjSofiai 
frequent  oeciurence  in  Greek  authors,  and  signifies  *to  be 
ajQFected  by  pleasure  together  with  another/  or  'to  be  glad:' 
and  so  the  Latin  translator  has  well  expressed  it,  by  coining 
a  new  word,  which  would  give  its  whole  forcej  '  condelector/ 
'  To  delight^  therefore  '  in  the  law/  (if  we  wish  to  keep  to  the 
strict  meaning  of  the  word^)  must  here  signify  the  Joint  plea- 
sure or  dehght  of  the  law^  and  man  who  is  under  it.     But 
surely  it  is  improper  to  attribute  pleasure  or  delight  to  the 
law.     ^Yhat  follows  then?     The  law  is  said  to  delight  and 
rejoiee  in  those  things  which  it  determines  to  be  good,  and 
commands  to  be  done :  man,  on  the  other  hand,  is  said  to 
delight  in  (or  with)  the  law  when  he  consents  to  its  judgment,  condelec- 
that  is,  when  he  determines  those  things  to  be  good  and  ^" 
proper  to  be  done  which  the  law  recommends  to  him  as 
such.     If  the  Apostle  had   said,  '  I  rejoiee'  in  the  law,  it  icpvSofiai 
would  have    rather   favoured    the   Doctor's    Interpretation. 
There  is  no  reason,  therefore,  to  induce  us  to  beliere  that 
'  to  delight  in  the  law,'  in  ver.  22,  means  any  thing  more 
than  'to  consent  to  the  law,^  in  ver.   16.     And  so  Calvin 
tums  the  Apostle's  words,  ver.  22,  'consenting  to  the  law 
after  the  inner  man.'     But  there  is  no  necessity  for  us  to 
carry  on  this  dispute  about  the  meaning  of  the  word  '  to  de- 
light.'    It  has  been  proved  both  by  reason  and  the  piain 
testimony  of  Scripture,  that  some  sort  of  delight  in  the  law 
of  God  is  to  be  found  even  in  the  unregenerate.     But  to 
those  who  say  that  these  passages  of  Scripture  do  not  mean  a 
true  and  real  delight  in  the  law  of  God,  but  only  a  fluctuating 
and  unstable,  I  have  made  the  following  reply :  "  How  is  it  ii.Diss.ix. 
that  these  persons  do  not  see  that  the  same  remark  equaUy,  JL^'  ^^^' 
nay,  in  a  much  greater  degree,  applies  to  the  passage  before 
US  ?  For  St.  Paul  certainly  does  not  attribute  to  the  person 
here  represented  a  firm  and  settled  dehght  in  the  law  of 
God,  but  one  of  such  sort,  as,  when  the  allurements  of  the 


396  Of  the  phrases,  '  inner  man,'  '  the  niind,' 

SECT.  flesli  present  themselves,  is  so  overcome  and  absorbed  by 
tliera,  that  the  wretcbed  man  is  at  last  quite  led  captive  to 


ver.22, 23.  the  law  of  sin  in  bis  members.  But  who  can  object  to 
the  unregenerate  baving  such  a  delight  as  this,  or  who  attri- 
bute  it  to  the  regeneräte?"  On  this  point  Dr.  Tully  is  per- 
fectly  silent. 

§  25.  Dr.  Tully  now  proceeds  to  Avhat  I  have  said  against 

Diss.ij.27.  Pareeus  concerning  'the  inner  man.^  "As  to  what  he  sa^'s 
about  the  inner  and  new  man  being  so  opposed^  he  proves 
himself  to  be  Ignorant  that  many  great  di\ines  difFer  with 
him  on  that  point."  Now  it  seems  very  extraordinary  that 
he  should  not  have  known  that  many  more  and  greater 
divines  agreed  with  me  therein.  For  it  is  certain  that  nearly 
all  the  ancient  and  very  many  modern  divines  are  of  opinion 
that  the  mind^  or  rational  soul  of  man,  is  meant  by  the 
expression  '  inner  man.^ 

This  has  been  shewn  to  be  so  by  I.  Arminius,  in  his  Dis- 
sertation on  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  Romans.  Even 
EstiuSj  Avho  in  other  points  supports  Dr.  Tully^s  interpreta- 
tion,  agrees  with  us  on  this.     His  remarks  on  the  passage  are 

p.  66,  &c.  as  follow  :  "  I  Interpret  '  the  inner  man/  to  mean  '  the  mind/ 

1614.]  '^  ^^*^  ^^^  ^^^  ^^^  0^  renewed  man.  For  the  Apostle  does  not 
mean  the  same  by  the  inner  and  new  man,  as  neither  does 
he  by  the  outward  and  old  man.  For  even  in  sinners  there 
is  the  inner,  but  not  as  yet  the  renewed  man.  In  the 
righteous  however,  the  term  inner  man  is  coincident  with 
the  new  man."  By  which  he  raeans,  that  in  this  passage 
the  inner  man  coincides  with  the  new,  according  to  his  hypo- 
thesis  that  St.  Paul  is  here  speaking  of  a  regenerate  person, 
whose  inner  man  is  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit :  he  acknow- 
ledges,  nevertheless,  that  'inner  man'  by  itsclf,  mcans  nothing 
more  than  '  the  mind,'  and  therefore,  that  it  may  be  applied 
as  well  to  sinners  as  to  the  righteous.  Thus  we  see  that 
Estius  by  no  means  agreed  with  Dr.  Tully  and  Parseus,  in 
supposing  that  becausc  the  term  'inner  man^  is  applied  to  the 
person  described  in  this  chapter,  it  could  therefore  be  fairly 
iiiferred  that  the  Apostle  is  here  speaking  of  a  regenerate 
person.  Besides,  I  have  proved  most  incontrovcrtibly  that 
the  term  'inner  man'  in  this  passage,  raeans  the  same  as 
'mind'   or   rational   soul.      It   is   casy   to   coujecture    why 


'  the  fles]i,'  '  07äward/  '  old,'  and  '  neiv  man.'  397 

Dr.  Tally  does  not  make  any  reply  to  all  tliis :  but  thougli  s  E  C  T. 
tlie  reverend  gentleman  had  no  answer  to  produce,  he  is  not  — ~ — 
however  slow  to  bring  forward   a  kind  of  objection  to  our 
arguments  :  for  he  thiis  proceeds.     "  Whatever  be  the  mean- 
ing  of  the  term  '  inner  man/  the  Apostle  certainly  opposes  it 
to  *the  flesh/  and  'the  law  in  bis  members/  and  it  searcely  ver.  18,22, 
will   be    doubted   by    any    one   who    has    seriously   studied  "^" 
the  Scriptures,  'the  flesh'  often  signifies  in  them  the  whole 
nature  of  man,  in  its  depraved  condition  since  the  fall."     I 
answer:  we  readily  acknowledge  that  the  term  'flesh'  fre- 
quently  means  in    Scripture  the  whole  nature  of  man  as 
derived  from  Adam:  but  in  this  wider  seuse  'the  flesh'  is 
not  opposed  to   the  inner  man,  but   to  the    Spirit;  as   in 
the  passage  quoted  by  Dr.  Tully,  "That  wliich  is  born  ofjoh.  3.  G. 
the  flesh  is  flesh :   and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is 
Spirit."     "Whereas  'the  inner  man'  is  here  opposed  by  the 
Apostle  to  his  bodily  '  members/  and  aff'ections  which  spring 
from  them.     For  to  those  words,  '  I  delight/  or  '  consent  to 
the   law  of  God   after  the   inner   man/  the  Apostle   pre-  ver.  22. 
sently  adds,  'but  I  see  another  law  in  my  members.'     To 
this  Dr.  Tully  replies :  "  It  is  to  no  purpose  that  the  Har- 
monist  understands  by  members,  merely  those  of  the  body ; 
for  so  all  kinds  of  desires  which  are  contrary  to  the  law  are 
figuratively  called,  of  which  original  sin  is  as  it  were  the  body, 
when  it  makes  use  of  them  as  of  the  service  of  a  body  and  its 
members."     But  this  is  plainly  to  no  purpose :  for  although 
I  de  not  deny  that  the  Apostle  elsewhere  calls  the  whole 
habit  of  sin  '  the  body/  and  its  various  parts  '  the  members/ 
yet  I  do  altogether  deny  that  he  uses  this  figure  in  this  pas- 
sage.    For  in   the  first   place,  the  members  of  which  the 
Apostle  speaks,  he  calls  'bis  own/  and  not  the  members  of 
sin :  for  he  says,  '  in  my  members : '  and  in  the  next  place, 
there  is  an  evident  distinction  between  a  twofold  law  and  the 
abode  of  each.     The  law  of  sin  is  opposed  to  the  law  of  God  : 
the  law  of  God  is  seated  in  the  inner  man,  or  in  the  mind  of 
man,  whence  also  it  is  called  'the  law  of  the  mind :'  the  law 
of  sin  is  seated  in  the  members :  therefore  the  members  do 
not  constitute  the  whole  of  fallen  man,  but  only  that  part  of 
him  which  is  distinguished  from  his  mind,  that  is,  his  body 
and  bodilv  aff'ections.     And  lastly,   if  anv   one  is  dcsirous 


398  Absurd  arguments  attributed  to  the  author. 

s  E  c  T.  really  to  understand  the  Apostle's  meaning,  and  to  know 
'- —  wliat '  the  law  of  sin  in  his  members^  is,  let  him  read  the  fifth 


verse  of  this  chapter,  and  the  twelfth,  thirteenth,  and  four- 
teenth  verses  of  the  sixth.  The  case  is  so  evident,  that  we 
have  even  Estius  again  to  support  us.  For  thus  he  comments 
on  the  twenty-thii'd  verse  of  this  chapter.  "  I  find  another 
law  in  my  members,  that  is,  in  my  body,  and  the  whole  out- 
ward man,  which  during  this  life  is  not  renewed  but   is 

2Cor.4.i6.  corruptedj  and  he  says  'in  his  members,'  because  in  certain 
members  the  rebeUion  is  chiefly  perceived  which  this  law 
of  sin  which  he  is  speaking  of  excites."  Dr.  Tully's  next 
objection  to  the  Harmonist  is,  because  he  explains  the 
struggle  in  this  chapter  to  be  between  the  sensitive  appetite 
and  the  reason  or  intellect  imbued  with  the  knowledge  of  the 
law.  This  may  be  easily  refuted  by  what  has  been  ah'eady 
Said:  and  therefoi'e  we  need  not  detain  the  reader  by  the 
consideration  of  it. 

§  26.  Dr.  Tully's  remarks  on  my  answer  to  Parseus'  fifth 
argument  drawn  from  the   twenty-fourth  and   twenty-fifth 

Diss.  p.  verses,  are  certainly  astonishing.  In  the  first  place  he  attri- 
'  ^'  butes  to  me  some  absurd  kind  of  argument,  such  as,  "  He 
who  does  or  says  things  which  might  be  consistent  with  a 
regenerate  person,  is  to  be  accounted  unregenerate :  the 
person  in  Rom.  vii.  is  of  that  description :  therefore"  &c. 
Again :  "  The  person  described  by  St.  Paul  moums  over  his 
sins,  &c. :  some  unregenerate  person  mourns  over  his  sins : 
therefore  that  person  is  some  unregenerate  person."  But 
where  has  he  found  the  author  of  the  Harmony  arguing  so 
very  absm'dly?  I  beg  the  reader  to  refer  to  the  paragraph 

ll.Diss.ix.  in  that  Avork,  and  he  will  wonder  how  a  man  of  so  much 
■  ^'  '  seriousness  could  find  any  opening  for  treating  a  solemn 
subject  so  hghtly.  But  this  is  nothing.  Shortly  afterwards, 
while  endeavouring  to  convict  the  Harmonist  of  the  grossest 
contradiction,  he  hiraself  is  convicted  of  dowm-ight  falsehood  : 
"  We  must  not  pass  over,"  he  says,  "  what  the  Harmonist 
forces  upon  us,  that  the  'giving  of  thanks'  in  ver.  25,  may 
well  be  apphed  to  an  unregenerate  person.  'I  thank  God 
through  Jesus  Christ.'  But  he  presently  corrects  this 
opinion  by  his  wonderful  parenthesis,  (not  his  own  however,) 
which  is  to  be  transferred  to  the  regenerate  Paul."     Now 


Of  St.  PauVs  thanksgiving  in  ve)\  25.  399 

where,  I  ask,  has  the  Harmonist  ever  said  that  the  '  thanlis-  s  E  c  T. 
giving*  iu  ver.  25,  may  be  applied  to  an  unregenerate  per-      ^^' 


son?  I  give  tlie  reader  my  words :  "The  Apostle  adds,  in  p.  m. 
the  twenty-fourth  verse,  an  exclamation  or  expression  of 
misery  suited  to  the  man  \rhom  he  had  been  describing  in 
the  preceding  verses  ;  shewing  his  miserablcj  and,  if  you 
regard  the  law,  actually  deplorable  condition.  And  then  in 
ver.  25,  he  sets  forth  the  grace  of  God  through  Christ,  by 
which  alone  he  himself  had  been  dehvered  from  this  most 
wretched  state,  and  a  way  of  dehverance  had  been  made  and 
thrown  open  to  others :  which  '  thanksgiving^  is  to  be  read 
in  a  parenthesis." 

I  say  here  indeed,  that  this  expression  of  woe,  ver.  24, 
applies  to  the  man  whom  St.  Paul  had  been  describing  in 
the  former  verses  :  bat  that  the  ^  thanksgiving^  in  ver.  25 
must  be  read  in  a  parenthesis  and  referred  to  the  person  of 
St.  Paul.  After  this  wandering,  Dr.  Tully  at  last  proceeds 
to  the  argument  in  favour  of  my  opinion,  taken  from  the 
twenty-fourth  and  twenty-fifth  verses,  and  which  I  had 
called  most  incontrovertible.  It  assumes  the  following  form: 
"The  State  of  the  person  described  in  this  chapter  is  a  state  p-  m. 
of  misery,  a  state  of  sin  and  death,  a  state,  in  short,  from 
which  whomsoever  are  Christ's  are  delivered  :  the  state  of 
the  regenerate  is  not  of  such  a  kind  :  therefore  the  state  of 
the  regenerate  is  not  the  state  of  the  person  described  in  this 
chapter."  In  answer  to  this,  Dr.  Tully  in  the  first  place 
turns  it  into  ridicule,  as   usual :    and  then  briefly  replies,  Diss.  p. 

32   33 

that  "the  whole  argument  is  nothing  eise  but  begging  the  ' 
question."  But  is  it  not  most  plainly  confirmed  by  St.  Paul's 
words  in  the  twenty-fourth  and  twenty-fifth  verses  ?  Surely 
it  is.  For  the  person  described  in  the  former  verses,  is  in 
the  twenty-fourth  called  by  St.  Paul  'a  wretched  miser- 
able man,^  and  is  said  to  be  subject  to  '  the  body  of  death,' 
that  is,  the  dominion  of  sin,  and  so  to  death.  In  the 
twenty-fifth  verse,  the  gi'ace  of  God  through  Christ  is 
extoUed,  by  which  alone  man  can  obtain  dehverance  from 
this  misery  and  body  of  death.  What  can  be  plainer  ?  But 
Dr.  Tully  goes  on :  "  Will  he  deuy  then,  that  he  himself  is  a 
sinner,  and  wretched  on  this  very  account,  and  that  in  the 
State  in  which  he  is,  he  daily,  nay  hourly,  deserves  death  V 


400  77^6  retjenerate  not  called  loretched,  ^c. 

s  E  c  T.  He  concludes,  "  In  tliis  at  least  let  him  liave  regard  to  his 


IX. 


own  modesty."  I  answer  :  I  -svillingly  confess  before  God 
and  men,  that  I  was  once  a  most  grievous  sinner,  and  tliere- 
fore  most  miserable :  and  I  acknowledge,  that  even  now,  I 
offend  in  many  tliings :  but  I  trust  tliat  by  the  grace  of 
Godj  Avithout  arrogance,  I  can  deny  that  I  am  a  sinner  in 
the  sense  that  the  word  is  used  in  Scripture,  or  that  I  am 
under  the  body  of  death,  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks,  and 
therefore  miserable.  But  whatever  I  may  be,  (and  I  wish 
that  the  reverend  gentleman  wonld  allow  me  to  stand  or  fall 
to  my  own  master,)  I  altogether  deny  that  a  regenerate  or 
truly  religious  person  is  ever  called  in  Scripture  '  a  wretched' 
or  '  miserable  mau/  not  to  snj  miserable  becanse  he  is 
subject  to  the  body  of  death  of  which  the  Apostle  speaks. 
Let  Dr.  Tally  produce  a  passage  of  tliis  kind  from  Iloly 
Scripture,  if  he  can.  But  on  the  contrary,  the  whole  of 
Scripture,  bc  it  prophetical,  evangelical,  or  apostolical,  every 
where  declares  such  a  man  to  be  blessed  and  happy.  More- 
over,  however  Dr.  Tully  maj'  despise  my  ai'gument,  I  know 
of  a  most  learned  man  wlio  for  some  time  kept  most  tenaci- 
ously  to  the  erroneous  iuterpretation  of  this  passage,  but 
afterwards,  convinced  by  a  more  serious  consideration  of  this 
one  arguraent,  yielded  to  the  truth.  This  was  Nicolas 
Zitinius,  who  haAdug  taken  upon  himself,  at  the  desire  of  his 
friends,  the  task  of  explaining  this  se^enth  chapter  accord- 
ing  to  their  supposition  who  think  that  from  the  fourteenth 
verse  of  it,  St.  Paul  speaks  of  himself  as  regenerate,  and 
having  earnestly  applied  himself  to  the  undertaking,  when  at 
length  he  came  to  the  words,  "  O  wretched  man  that  I  am  ! 
who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?  I  thank 
God  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,"  stopped  like  one 
astounded  :  and  presently  Coming  to  himself  broke  out  in 
the  following  words  :  "  But  where  is  this  deliverance  ?  where 
this  blessing  for  which  the  Apostle  so  thanks  God?  was  it 
that  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  be  kept  in  such  slavery  to 
sin  ?  That  cannot  be  proved  to  me  in  any  way  :  and  there- 
fore I  equally  thank  the  Father  of  lights  for  vouchsafing  the 
light  of  His  truth  to  shine  upon  me,  in  being  delivered  from 
so  great  an  error."  Would  that  Dr.  Tully  would  imitate  his 
example. 


Parenthes^is  in  ver.  25.  explained.  401 

§  27.  Dr.  TuUy  again  inveighs  against  wliat  I  liad  said  s  E  c  T. 
touching  the  necessity  of  reading  tlie  words,  *  I  tliank  God/ 


&c.  in  a  parenthesis,  as  if  spoken  by  tlie  Apostle  in  liis  own  ^^^"P" 
person.  He  had  before  spoken  of  this  parenthesis  of  mine 
as  being  extraordinary.  But  why  is  it  extraordinaiy  for 
the  Apostle,  after  describing  the  wretched  condition  of  man 
under  the  law,  to  shew  by  a  few  words  enclosed  in  a  short 
parenthesis,  that  this  description  did  not  apply  to  himself, 
and  moreover,  to  cut  off  any  opening  for  despair  in  this 
wretched  man  by  shewing  that  his  condition  was  not  alto- 
gether  deplorable,  but  that  a  sure  remedy  was  at  haud,  if 
only  he  would  embrace  the  grace  of  Christ :  and  that  he 
then  should  return  to  his  original  purpose  in  the  twenty- 
sixth  verse,  and  sum  up  very  briefly  the  whole  of  his  preced- 
ing  discourse?  Should  this  appear  so  absurd,  as  to  be  obliged, 
besides  attributing  to  the  Apostle  an  irrelevant  and  really 
absurd  argument,  (such  as  we  have  proved  Dr.  Tully  to  do,) 
to  distort  the  phrases  used  by  the  Apostle,  from  the  four- 
teenth  to  the  twenty-fifth  verse,  into  a  meaning  totally  at 
variance  with  their  accustomed  sense  throughout  the  whole 
of  Scripture?  But  there  is  not  wanting  a  similar  example 
of  a  parenthesis  being  used  by  St.  Paul  in  a  like  change  of 
person,  and  that  too  in  this  same  Epistle :  the  passage  is 
in  the  third  chapter,  where  in  the  fifth  verse  St.  Paul  ver.  5, 6, 7. 
speaking  in  the  character  of  the  Jews,  (according  to  the 
agreement  of  the  most  leamed  interpreters,)  says,  "But  if 
our  unrighteousness  commend  the  righteousness  of  God, 
what  shall  we  say  ?  Is  God  unrighteous,  Who  taketh  venge- 
ance  V  And  then  in  a  parenthesis,  he  says  in  his  own  person, 
"  I  speak  as  a  man,'^  &c.  He  then  returns  to  the  objection 
brought  forward,  and  again  assumes  the  person  of  the  un- 
belie\dng  Jews,  ver.  7.  "  For  if  the  truth  of  God  hath  more 
abounded  through  my  lie  unto  His  glory,"  &c.  The  reader 
may  refer  to  Grotius  on  this  passage. 

§  28,  In  the  last  place,  Dr.  Tully  is  displeased,  because  in 
my  answer  to  the  last  objection  of  Parieus  I  said  by  the  way 
that  it  was  not  necessary  to  render  the  words  auro«?  e^w,  in 
ver.  26,  '  I  my  seif : '  sincc  they  might  be  bettcr  expressed  by 
'  I  that  man.^  This  also  appears  to  him  extraordinary  :  but  ille  ego 
why  ?  is  it  wonderful  or  new  for  the  Apostle  to  say,  as  if  in 

BULL.  I)    (1 


402  On  the  expression  avro<;  eyco. 

S  E  C  T.  his  owu  persou,  by  using  the  proiiouu  /,  that   wliich  does 
^'^-      not  refer  to  himself  but  to  others?     I  have  clearly  shewn 
(wliatever  Dr.  Tally  may  say  to  the  contrary)  that  the  Apo- 
stle  uses  this  change  of  person  in  other  places :  and  even  in 
this  very  chapter^  ver.  9,  unless  we  vrish  to  do  violence  to  the 
Apostle's  words.     Does  he  think  it  wonderful  that  I  should 
render   avrb^  by'that  one?'  eren  beginners  in  the  Greek 
language,  know  that  this  use  of  this  word  is  quite  common. 
Whence  before  Hugo  Grotius,  James  Capel,  who  certainly 
was  not  ignorant  of  Greek^  and  -who  in  other  respects  agreed 
with  Dr.  Tully's  interpretation,  thus  paraphrased  the  Apo- 
stle's  words,  '  So  then  I  myself/  &c.     "  I  thank  God  because 
I  that  mau,  Avho  was    by  nature  the    servant  of  sin/'  &e. 
Tliere  are  some  who  render  the  words  by  '  I  the  same  man/ 
as  if  the  Apostle  said,  '  I,  one  and  the  same  person,  with  the 
mind  serve  the  law  of  God ;  but  with  the  flesh,  the  law  of 
sin:'  which   Version  agrees  verj'  well  with  our  view  of  the 
question.     So  Erasmus_,  Bucer,  Hammond,  and  long  before 
them,  the  Arabian  Interpreter.     But  the  fortunes  of  Greece 
do  not  depend  on  this.     Nor  is  it  necessary,  as  the  Doctor 
himself    acknowledges,    to    pursue   this   point   of   grammar 
farther,  if  only  we  have  proved  by  some  ai'guments  taken 
from  the  subject  itself,  that  the  Apostle,  from  the  fom'teenth 
verse  of  this  chapter,  is  describing  a  man  under  the  law  and 
destitute  of  the  grace  of  the  Gospel.     "  Of  this/'  (to  close 
my  Apology  with  Dr.  Tully's  own  words,)  "  let  honest  and 
thoughtful  readers  judge." 


INDEX. 


Abraham,  promise  to,  not  through  the 

law,  188. 
Adam,  descendants  of,  without  a  reve- 

latiou,  bound  by  natural  law  alone, 

160.  all  descendants  of,  as  such,  sub- 

ject  to  death  witliout  hope  of  resur- 

rection,  159. 
Afrlcan  Canons,  169. 
a.Kfji'^v,  meaning  of  the  word,  362. 
Alemaijmts,  175. 
Algasias,  questions  of,  9. 
Altisiodorensis,  175. 
Alms,  an   external  act  of  repentance, 

59. 
Ambrose,  St.,  183,  271.  Pseudo,  quota- 

tion  from,  182.  on  Rom.  7.  14,  365. 
Amolo,  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  letter  of, 

to  Gothescalcus,  328. 
Amyraldtis,  368,  390. 
Anabaptists,  condemned  by  Augsburg 

Confession,  320. 
"Aj'oyuos,  387. 
'Av6iMS,  387. 
Antinomianism,  worst  kind  of,  supported 

by  Dr.  Tully,  245. 
Antinomians,  execrable  tenets   of,  can 

be  traced  from  the  Lutherans,  68, 

82.  argument  against,  89.  followers 

of    Simon,    143.    opponents    of    St. 

James,  ib. 
Antiquity,  preferred  to  Calvm,  230.  to 

be  revereneed  next  after  Holy  Scrip- 

ture,  231. 
Apostacy,  total,  intended  Heb.  6.  and 

10,  180.  of  true  believers,  313.  case 

of  Saul  and  Judas,  314.  danger  of, 

taught  by  St.  Peter,  315. 
Aretiu.i,  on  Rom.  7.  14,  385. 
Arles,  Council  of,  80,  327. 
Arminius,  J.,  on  Rom.  7.  396. 
Article  eleventh,  to  be  explained  by  the 

Homilv,  217,  218.  explained  away, 

by  Dr."  Tully,  230.  sixteenth,  309. 
Articles  of  Lambeth,  230.  decree  pre- 

fixed  to,  343. 

D 


Assent,  none  without  trust,  115. 

Athaiiasius,  St.,  197. 

Attrition,  22. 

Augsburg,  Confession  of,  292 — 297. 
drawn  up  by  Melancthon,  first  of  all 
Confessions,  ib. 

Augustine,  St.,  opiuion  of,  on  love,  20. 
carried  away  in  his  zeal  against  Pe- 
lagius,  167.  in  refuting  a  new  heresy 
took  unrecognised  grounds,  ib.  held 
that  some  after  conversion  had  lived 
without  sin,  169.  quoted,  211,  212, 
273,  274.  confesses  faith,  &c.,  may 
be  lost,  324.  opinion  of,  on  Rom.  7. 
before  Pelagian  controversy,  and 
after,  365.  moderns  opposed  to,  366. 
writings  of,  not  much  known  to 
Greek  Fathers,  367.  not  foUowed  by 
all  the  Latins,  ib. 

Author  of  Law  and  the  Gospel  the 
same,  97. 

Aürbs  €70),  how  rendered  in  Latin,  402. 
how  paraphrased  by  Grotius,  Capel, 
&c.,  ib. 


B. 


Baptism,  Sacrament  of,  179. 

Baron,  Robert,  on  trust,  121. 

Basil  the  Great,  8,  269. 

Bede,  the  first,  in  his  time,  of  doctors 

of  the    Church,    169.    uncertain    on 

Rom.  7.  367. 
Bellarmine' s  view  of  imputcd  and  in- 

herent  righteousness  the  true    one, 

82,  306.  on  condignity,  359.  mode- 

ration  of,  360. 
Bernard,  St.,  caution  of,  on  sin,  176. 
Beruhard,  77. 
Beza,  on  Rom.  7.  14,  385. 
Bilson,  against  the  Puritans,  233. 
Bohemian   Confession,  or  Waldensian, 

322,  323. 
Bucer  approved   of  the  phrase   '  faith 

perfected  by  love,'  15.  rebuked  those 

d2 


404 


INDEX. 


Protestants  who  objected  to   it,   15, 
368,  402.  011  St.  Peter's  denial,  393. 


Ceslestinus,  Bp.  of  Rome,  opinion  on 
new  Statements  of  St.  Austin,  343. 
note  o. 

Cajetan,  360. 

Calvin,  36,  45.  on  Luke  18.  13,  14,  47. 
disciples  of,  corrupt  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  satisfaction,  56.  wrong  in 
doctrine  and  discipline,  341.  on 
Rom.  7.  14,  384.  interprets  ver.  14. 
of  an  unregenerate  person,  ib. 

Caiion,  concerning  preachers,  231,  232, 
329. 

Capel,  James,  192,  402. 

Carthusianus,  368. 

Casaubon,  283. 

Cassander,  295. 

Castelüo,  368. 

Catholic  teaching,  on  the  State  of  the 
iirst  man  before  the  fall,  162.  followed 
in  the  Harmony,  234. 

Catholics,  Roman,  have  exposed  the 
fearful  doctrines  of  many  of  the  re- 
formed,  69.  we  must  join  with,  in 
openly  condemniug  dangerous  dog- 
mas,  70.  certain  who  teach  that  man 
may  commit  venial  suis  in  the  way 
of  contempt,  to  be  abhorred,  1 76. 

Censurer,  rejects  ancient  teaching,  as 
new,  3.  calumnies  of  the,  4,  5.  trifiing 
of  the,  12.  attributes  to  faith  an 
Operation  unheard  of  before,  31.  ab- 
surdities  and  contradictions  refuted, 
54,  55.  inconsistency  of,  64.  con- 
tradicts  St.  Paul,  68.  view  of  the 
moral  law,  70,  71.  lays  the  fouiida- 
tions  of  Antinomianism,  74.  argu- 
ment  of,  from  contraries  examined, 
111.  similes  of,  support  the  author's 
doctrine,  not  his  own,  112.  gross 
heterodoxy  of,  126.  frivol  ous  dis- 
tinction  of,  between  a  right '  to,'  and 
a  right  'in'  a  tliing,  130,  131.  care- 
lessness  of,  146.  calumnies  of,  216. 

Christ  alone  has  satisfied  Divine  Jus- 
tice, 2.  in  His  Sermon  explained  the 
law  moral,  71.  requires  its  observ^- 
ance,  ib.  has  not  died  for  elect  alone, 
330.  His  satisfaction  universal,  331. 

Christians,  bouiul  to  a  higher  dcgree  of 
virtue  thaii  Gentiles,  162.  cases  of, 
who  have  grievously  sinned,  178. 
case  of  incestuous,  179.  unfruitful, 
cut  off,  and  delivered  to  Satan,  312, 
313. 

Chri/soslom,  St.,  8,  84,  196,  272. 

Chnrch,  Catholic,  held  it  orthodox  to 
say  a  man  is  justified  by  keejüng 
moral  precepts,  96. 


Church  of  England,  Catholic  in  doc- 
trine and  polity,  231.  appeal  to,  275. 

Churches,  reformed,  appeal  to,  291. 

Clement,  St.,  of  Alexandria,  on  the 
words  "  Thy  faith  liath  saved  thee," 
63,  166,  362.  of  Rome,  testimony  of, 
57.  true  explanation  of  the  satisfac- 
tion of  Christ,  ib.  on  universal  pro- 
pitiation  of  Christ,  81. 

*  Condelectari,'  395. 

Condition,  none  enjoined  in  the  Gospel 
which  is  not  a  condition  of  justifica- 
tion,  38,  39. 

Confession  of  Augsburg,  258,  292 — 
297.  Wurtemburg,  297,  298.  Stras- 
burg, 299—301.  Saxony,  321,  322. 
Bohemia,  322,  323. 

Confidencc,  justifying,  Censurer's  view 
of,  98.  according  to  Censurer,  formal 
cause  of  justifying  faith,  99.  produc- 
tive  of  obedience,  100.  many  profess, 
who  are  far  from  salvation,  103. 
Censurer's  same  as  füll  assurance, 
105. 

Contrition,  irue  sorrow  for  sin,  22.with- 
out  faith,  296.  with  faith,  297. 

Corinthiaiis,  why  canial,  380. 

Cornelius,  32.  case  of,  considered,  33.  a 
proselyte  of  the  gate,  ib.  alms  and 
prayers  of,  accepted  by  God,  34. 

Covenant,  distinction  between  Mosaic 
and  Gospel,  only  according  to  the 
letter,  164.  with  Abraham,  the  Gos- 
pel itself,  165.  none  after  the  fall, 
beside  the  Gospel,  164.  of  works, 
195.  of  Mount  Sinai,  205. 

'  Credere  alicui,'  and  '  in  aliquem,'  He- 
braic  use  of,  119.  Augustine' s  expla- 
nation of  the  phrases,  120. 

Cresci,  Council  of,  328. 

Crisp,  Tobias,  Sermons  of,  74.  supports 
his  teaching  from  the  Censurer,  ib. 
asserts  no  repentance  is  necessary 
for  forgiveness,  76,  259. 

Cypriun,  St.,  268,  362,  364. 

Xeoplj  v6/xov,  387. 


D. 


liamascene,  John,  St.,  362. 

Dumnation,  cause  of,  sin  in  man,  335. 

Davenant,  42,  354. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  197. 

Discrepancy  of  St.  Paul  and  St.  James 
apparent  only,  4. 

Distrust  and  iucredulity  the  same  things, 
if  rcfcrred  to  the  same  object,  111. 
])r()ved  to  be  the  same  with  iucredu- 
lity by  familiär  examples,  113. 

Bivines,  modern,  to  be  avoided,  3.  re- 
formed, many,  in  opposing  Roman 


INDEX. 


405 


Catholics,  have  run  into  absurdities, 
69.  of  AngHcan  Church  generally 
well  versed  in  Catholic  writitigs,  70. 
foreign,  have  erred  against  their 
own  confessions,  ib.  catalogue  of 
modern,  agreeing  witli  the  autlror  on 
Rom.  7.  14,  368. 

Dovünic  a  Sota,  360. 

Dordt,  Synod  of,  Canons  of,  rejeeted  by 
the  English  Church,230.condemned, 
linder  name  of  the  Lambeth  Articles, 
ib. 

Dorotheus,  363. 


E. 


Ebbo  of  Grenoble,  328. 

Edward  VI.,  Catechism  of,  319.  Dr. 
Hickman's  perversion  of,  ib.  320. 

Elect,  the,  unknown  to  men,  79. 

Election,  feeling  of,  foUows  only  lipon 
faith  and  love,  &c.  absolute  and 
irrespective,  not  taught  in  reformed 
Chiirches,  109.  perception  of,  con- 
fined  by  cur  Church  only  to  the 
godly,  110.  free  mercy  of  God,  338. 

'Ei'epye7(Tdai,  explanation  of  the  word, 
17,  18.  how  it  ought  to  be  translated, 
ib.  must  be  used  passively,  ib.  so 
used  by  ancient  writers,  19. 

Ennodius,  364. 

Erasmus,  36,  368,  402. 

Estiiis,  36,  152.  on  the  phrase  '  inner 
man,'  396. 

Eucharist,  offered  for  forgiveness  of 
sins,  179. 

'E<^Tj5ojuai,  395. 


Faber  Stapulensis,  368. 

Faith  and  love  may  be  distinct  in  the 
subject,  16.  ivepyeia  of,  31.  by  itself 
not  a  "  swarm  of  virtues,"  but  con- 
sidered  so  by  St.  Paul,  52.  instru- 
mentality  of,  notions  of,  sophistical, 
60.  assertions  of  sole  instrumentality 
of,  contradict  Holy  Scripture,  ib. 
no  where  said  in  Holy  Scripture  to 
be  the  one  instrument,  61.  special 
influence  of,  in  obtaining  righteous- 
ness,  mere  question  of  words,  64,  65. 
works,  &c.,  true  view  of  efRcacy  of, 
66.  without  love  useless,  68.  three 
acts  of,  justification  not  joined  to 
either  by  itself,  97,  98.  jiistifying, 
pretended  difficulty  of  explaining, 
unreal,  102.  no  true  explanation  of, 
which  excludes  love,  104.  and  assent 
thesame,112.  aman  may  have  all,  yet 
no  love,  114.  Christian,  Iruo  distinc- 


tion  of,  various  acts  of,  116, 117.  and 

differs  from  trust  only  as  general  and 
particular,  121.  faith,  assent  to  the 
whole  Gospel,  tru.it  to  its  promises, 
ib.  cannot  be  separated  in  the  matter 
of  the  judgment  from  good  works, 
127.  used  by  synecdoche  for  univer- 
sal Spiritual  righteousness,  143.  in- 
separable  from  Baptism,  270.  alone 
directly  leads  to  Christ,  therefore 
said  to  justify,  282,  283. 

'Faith  in  blood,'  phrase,  uncommon  in 
Holy  Scripture,  150. 

'  Faithful,'  twofold  sense  of,  263. 

Familists,  arose  from  Lutheran  teach- 
ing,  68. 

Farindon,  368. 

Fathers,  reverence  for  the,  proof  of 
attachment  to  the  Church,  3.  before 
Pelagius  taught  the  possibility  of 
perfect  obedience  through  grace,  166. 
teach  that  few  have  attained  perfec- 
tion  of  virtiie,  167.  in  what  sense 
they  denied  the  fulfilment  of  the 
law  by  the  grace  of  Christ,  169. 
writings  of  the,  to  be  studied  con- 
tinually,  210.  great  danger  of  neg- 
lecting,  ib.  teaching  of,  followed  by 
English  divines,  232.  appeal  to  the, 
264.  how  they  understood  '  by  faith 
only,'  265.  opinion  of,  on  Rom.  7. 
14,  361.  twenty-two  against  Dr, 
Tully's  four,  364,  365. 

Faustns,  the  Manichsean,  207,  327. 

Fear  of  God,  servile  without  love,  22. 
filial,  ib.  297. 

Fell,  Bp.,  advice  of,  3. 

Field,  Dean,  explanation  of  phrase  '  by 
faith  only,'  286,  287,  353. 

Figure  of  change  of  persons,  386.  Vid. 
1  Cor.  4.  3,  4 ;  compared  with  ver. 
6  ;  Rom.  3.  7  ;  1  Cor.  6. 1 2, 15  ;  and 
10.  23,  29,  30;  Gal.  2.  18. 

'  Fitness,'  explained,  345. 

Forgiveness,  an  act  not  extraneous  to 
justification,  45 — 48.  difference  be- 
tween  simple  and  '  legitimate,'  or 
conditional,  52.  an  act  of  free  mercy, 
ib. 


G. 


Gabriel,  175. 

Gataker,  Tlwmas,  133,  134.  agrees  with 
Placaeus,  134.  epistle  to  Baxter,  149. 

Gnostics,  178. 

God,  no  respecter  of  persons,  32.  does 
not  forgive  without  justifying,  51. 
does  not  order  impossibilities,  168, 
not  the  cause  of  sin  or  death,  336. 
would  have  all  men  saved,  340.  not 
to  be  called  nur  dcbtor,  359. 


406 


INDEX. 


Good  works,  a  neoessary  condition,  2. 
whether  of  the  same  rank  as  faith, 
65,  QQ.  more  thaii  mere  signs  of 
faith,  127. 

Gospel  covenant,  heiiefits  of,  29.  tlie 
whole  comprised  under  repentance 
and  forgiveness,  48,  62.  in  wliat  sense 
not  a  law  of  perfect  obedience,  155. 
enjoins  nothing,  not  attainable  by 
grace,  166.  does  not  enjoin  impossi- 
bilities,  proved  by  reason,  171.  all 
degrees  of  virtue  enjoined  by,  matters 
of  precept,  ib.  does  not  denounce 
for  every  failing,  ib.  indulgence  of, 
Seen  in  grant  of  pardon  of  all  sins, 
176.  lay  hid  under  the  law,  198. 

Gothescalcus,  revived  Predestinarian 
heresy,  327—329. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  8,  364. 

Grotius,  confounds  justification  with 
reward,  23.  his  work  on  the  Satis- 
faction  of  Christ  a  shield  against 
the  Socinians,  56.  too  inuch  given  to 
Socinian  interpretations,  151.  expla- 
nation  of  the  word,  lAaffTTjpiov ,  ib. 


H. 


Haimo,  367. 

Hall,  Bp.  of  Norwich,  234. 

Hammond,  44,  45,  234,  368,  402. 

Hurmonist,  why  considered  an  innova- 
tor,  230.  great  injury  done  to,  from 
the  Charge  of  Socinianism,  242. 

Harmoni/,  object  of  the,  2.  teaching  of 
the,  Catholic,  ib.  method  of  proceed- 
ing  in,  5.  read  and  approved  of  by 
Bp.  Nicholson,  349.  how  published, 
and  when,  ib.  author's  opinion  of, 
350. 

Heaven,  exclusion  from,  for  certain  de- 
finite  sins,  172. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  considered  by 
most  to  be  St.  Paul's,  187. 

Heresy,  of  Predestinarians,  327. 

Hickinnn,  Dr.,  heterodoxy  of,  321. 

Hihiry,  St..,  269.  of  Arles,  Epistle  to 
Augustine,  343.  note  o. 

Hincmar,  Bp.  of  Rlieims,  327,  328. 

Holincss,  imputed,  notion  of,  refutcd, 
86.  retains  grace  of  justification,  88. 

Hoinily,  on  Salvation,  217 — 219.  au- 
thorized  intcrpreter  of  eleventh  Ar- 
ticle,  276—278,  282,  307.  on  Repent- 
ance, 302,  303.  on  the  Resurrection, 
315.  the  Nativity,  316.  on  the  Pas- 
sion, 332. 

Hooker,  on  Justification,  279.  illus- 
trates  teaching  of  the  Ilomily,  280. 

Hooper,  Bp.,  on  perseverancc,  .317-  tes- 
timony  of,  on  universal  redeniption, 


333- 
337. 


-336.      foUowed     Melancthon, 


Hope,  difference  of,  from  faith,  21. 
faith  must  precede,  ib.  none  without 
love,  ib.  true,  consequent  ouly  on 
conditions  perfornied,  116. 

Huberians,  82. 


'  Ibis  ad  CeBsarem,'  dishonesly  of  author 
of,  318. 

Ignatius,  19. 

Inahility,  natural  and  moral,  distinc- 
tion  between  without  foundation, 
163. 

Indefectibility,  doctrine  of,  supported 
by  some  English  divines,  given  to 
theology  of  Geneva,  309.  opposed  by 
all  antiquity,  324.  originated  in  the 
Valentinians,  326.rejectedby  Church 
of  England,  because  opposed  to  all 
Catholic  consent,  329,  330.  (See 
Canon.) 

Innovation,  Charge  of,  explained  and 
refuted,  230. 

Interpretation,  reasonableness  of,  pur- 
sued  in  Harmony,  6. 

Irena-us,  St.,  9,  96,  97,  190,  265.  op- 
poser  of  Valentinians  and  Gnostics, 
326. 

Isidorus  Clarius,  20. 

'  Israel,  masters  of,'  lived  in  ignorance 
of  grace,  203. 

Izates,  Story  of,  34. 


Jackson,  368, 

James,  St.,   argument   of,  clear,   6,  7. 
speaks  of  works  of  faith  and  grace, 

7.  reasons  for  rejecting  bis  Epistle, 

8.  ancient  opinion  tliat  he  wrote 
against  perverters  of  St.  Paul,  11. 
advanced  no  new  dogma,  14.  sup- 
ported by  tlie  whole  of  Scripture,  ib. 
by  royal  law,  understands  the  moral 
law  sct  forth  by  Christ,  91. 

James,  King,  directions  of,  to  students 

in  divinity,  232. 
Jerome,  St.,  teaching  of,  on  the  possi- 

bility    of    God's    connnands,    168. 

against  Pelagius,  209. 
Jertisalem,  Council  of,  196. 
Jeivel,  233. 

Jews,  trust  of,  in  Mosaic  covenant  op- 
posed by  St.  Paul,  14.  not  confined 

to  letter  of  the  law,  214. 
Jexebel,  in  Rev.  2.  20,  understood  of 

the   wife  of  a  Bishop,   178.   of  the 

Gnostics,  ib. 


INDEX. 


407 


Jovintan,  327. 

Judaizhig  Cliristians  opposed  by 
St.  Paul,  142.  maintained  Mosaic 
ceremonies  were  necessary  for  sal- 
vation,  ib. 

Judas,  case  of,  296. 

Justificat'wn,  of  which  St.  James 
speaks,  7.  force  of  the  word,  23. 
what  it  is,  24.  may  be  where  no 
reward  is,  25.  is  uato  life  and 
salvation,  28.  '  Justification,'  '  life,' 
*  salvation,'  used  promisciiously,  ib. 
does  not  necessarily  mean  forgiveness 
of  sins,  50.  an  act  of  justice,  52,  53. 
of  the  Gospel  not  bare  and  simple 
forgiveness,  ib.  an  act  of  grace  and 
mercy  also,  ib.  forgiveness  must  be 
granted  either  before,  or  in  the  act 
of,  or  after,  55.  the  first  obtained  by 
internal  works,  59.  preserved  by 
external,  59,  60.  not  attributed  in 
Holy  Scripture  to  faith  alone,  61.  of 
a  sinner  only  called  'justification'  in 
three  places  in  Holy  Scripture,  ib. 
attributed  by  St.  Luke  18.  13,  14,  to 
the  humble  confession  of  a  penitent, 
62.  Matt.  12.  37,  to  men's  words, 
Jas.  2.to  works  proceeding  from  faith, 
ib.  Acts  13.  39,  to  the  other  virtues 
besides  faith,  ib.  where  expressed 
by  '  forgiveness  of  sins '  attributed 
to  repentance,  ib.  by  works,  doctrine 
of,  incontrovertible,  12  1.  no  denial  of 
it  without  denial  of  Scripture,  125. 
right  to  the  kingdom  given  in  the 
first,  revocable,  131.  notion  of,  from 
hypoerisy,  139.  the  two  causes  of 
cur,  stated,  148.  meritorious  cause  of, 
ib.  causa  sine  qua  no/i,  of,  ib.  belonged 
not  to  law  of  ^Nloses,  184,  185.  pre- 
supposes  the  less  and  primary  sanc- 
tification,  202.  true  and  only  way  of 
obtaining,  declared,  246.  acts  which 
precede,  253.  no  real,  before  nien, 
256.  formal  cause  of,  258.  condition 
of,  faith  and  repentance,  260.  office 
of  God  only,  281.  obedience  pre- 
serves,  307.  Roman  Catholic  doctrine 
of,  353. 

'  Justified,  to  be '  and  '  to  be  made  heirs ' 
equivalent,  28. 

'  Justify,'  the  word  used  differently 
undcr  the  Gospel,  50. 

Justin  Martyr,  saying  of,  162.  quoted, 
189,  190,  348,  362. 


Lambeth,  articles  of,  230. 

Latimer,  lip.,  on  apostacy,  318.  on 
election,  339,  340. 

Law,  whole  compriscd  in  two  things, 
dii.  no  perfcction  by,  187.  cnd  of  the, 
190,  191.  corresponds  with    way  of 


its  being  given,  193.  scrupulosity  of, 
to  what  end,  197.  spoken  of  in  two 
ways,  197,  198.  spiritual,  literal,  198. 

'  Law,  the'  used  by  St.  Paul  always  for 
the  Mosaic,  156. 

Law  of  Christ,  not  twofold,  but  one, 
89.  the  moral  law,  ib.  Christians  to 
be  judged  by,  90.  "  the  law  of 
liberty,"  or  "  royal  law,"  ib.  rule 
of  justification,  92.  to  be  obeyed  at 
the  hazard  of  our  soul,  ib.  an 
exten  sion  and  addition  to  the  Mosaic 
law,  196. 

'Law  of  Faith'  requires  observance  of 
commandments,  95. 

Law  of  God,  approved  of  by  the 
wicked,  392. 

Law  of  Gospel,  not  called  a  law  by  St. 
Paul,  156.  teaches  a  perfeetion  of 
virtue  above  nature,  161.  called  by 
divines  '  supernatural,'  ib. 

Law  of  Moses,  perfeetion  of,  not 
denied  in  Harmony,  154,  155.  gave 
no  true  remission,  185.  not  one  of 
absolute  perfeetion,  195.  wherein  its 
strictness  consisted,  196.  weakness 
of,  for  producing  holiness,  205. 
tendency  of,  earthly,  211 — 214. 
objeet  of,  348.  weakness  of,  351. 

Law  of  nature,  does  not  prescribe 
perfect  virtue  ;  heavenly  life^not  due 
to  its  observance,  161. 

'  Law  of  perfect  obedience,'  what  meant 
by,  158,  159. 

Law,  ritual,  not  given  tili  after  the 
pollntion  of  the  golden  calf,  190. 
gfiving  of  the,  how  understood  by  the 
ancients,  190,  191. 

'  Law  of  ivorks,'  the  Mosaic  law,  93. 
content  with  external  righteousness, 
94.  admitted  of  perfeetion  so  of  boast- 
ing,  95.  St.  Paul  blameless  accord- 
ing  to  it,  ib.  the  yoTuig  man  in  Älatt. 
19,  20.  had  kept  the  whole,  ib. 

Laivs,  to  fallen  man  three,  156. 

Legislation,  ISiosdäc  mode  of,  describeä, 
191. 

Libertincs,  oriffinated  in  Lutheranism, 
68. 

Life  eternal,  in  what  sense  not  promised 
in  Old  Testament,  205. 

Liturgy  of  Church  of  England,  teach- 
ing  öf,  304. 

Lnrd's  Supper,  Sacrament  of,  1 79. 

Love,  form  of  justifying  faith,  16.  gives 
faith  its  being  in  God's  sight,  19. 
only  to  be  found  in  the  holy,  20. 
the  form  of  every  virtue,  ib.  cliiefly 
regarded  by  God,  ib.  fulfilling  of 
the  law,  21.  determined  to  be  so  by 
Christ  Himself,  ib.  first  and  most 
excellent  of  all  virtues,  67. 

Luridus,  Icader  of  Prcdestinarian 
heresy,  327. 


408 


INDEX. 


Luther  and  his  followers  taught  that 
the  Gospel  consisted  of  promises 
only,  68.  that  Christ  gave  no  law,  ib. 

Lutheranism,  tendency  of  refonned 
divines  to,  68. 

Lijdda,  Synod  of,  note  i,  169,  207. 

Lyons,  Synod  of,  80. 

Lyranus,  368. 


M. 


Macarius,  361. 

Maccovius,  John,  78. 

Maironis  Fraiicisciis,  175. 

Man,  immortality  of,  first  depended  on 
grace  and  promise  of  God,  162. 
gifted  not  only  with  natural  in- 
tegrity,  but  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  ib. 
whether  before  the  fall,  could  have 
sinned  venially,  an  open  qiiestion, 
175,  176.  supported  by  St  Augus- 
tine, 176.  fallen,  bound  to  act  accord- 
ing  to  reason,  161. 

Marcionites,  97. 

Marcus  Eremita,  363. 

Mayence,  Synod  of,  328.  condemned 
Gothescalcus,  ib. 

Medcea,  example  of,  391. 

Melancthon,  author  of  Augsburg  Con- 
fession,  295.  on  true  contrition,  296. 
on  Predestination,  317,  337. 

Merit,  all  notions  of,  disclaimed,  35. 
of  condignity,  3J3.  supported  by 
Bellannine,  ib. 

Methodius,  364. 

Milevis,  canons  of  Council  of,  169. 

MicrÖbi'  Koyi^eaQai,  and  hiKaioavv7\v 
\oyi^e(T0ai,  not  the  sanie,  23. 

Montdgue,  his  Origines,  233. 

Morton,  Catholic  appeal  for  Protest- 
ants,  306. 

Moses,  sermon  of,  in  Deuteronoray,  214. 

Musculus,  46,  368. 


N. 

Ne/cüto,  a  proof  in  belief  of  the  per- 
manency  of  souls  after  death,  214. 

'Nostras,'  'Nostrates,'  use  of  the  words, 
69.  explained  by  L.  Valla,  ib. 

Noratians,  deny  repentance  after  \dlful 
sin,  177.  passages  adduced  by,  in 
support  of  their  opinion,  180. 

Novelty,  Charge  of,  answered,  3. 


Obedience,  impossible  without  grace,  2. 

all  Springs  from  faith  in  Christ,  96. 
Objeclion,   of   Censurer's    father   from 


the  strict  raeaning  of  the  word  '  to 

justify'  answered,  49 — 53. 
CEcumenius,  84. 
Opinions,   not    Socinian,    equally    per- 

nicious,  disclaimed,  241. 
Orange,  second  Council  of,  164. 
Origen,  8,  266.  on   possibility  of  ful- 

fiUing      all     the      commandments, 

166. 
Overall,  Bishop,  325.  on  deadly  sin,  309. 

on  satisfaction  of  Christ,  331. 


P. 


Pacian,  St.,  363. 

ParcBus,  46.  argunients  of  infavour  of  his 
interpretation  of  Rom.  7,  386.  ad  fin. 

Pardon,  hope  of,  to  greatest  sinners,  177. 

Parents,  our  first,  unable  to  attain  to 
virtue  fit  for  heaven  without  the  aid 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  163. 

Paul,  St.,  not  contradicted  in  the 
Harmony,  4.  argument  of,  obscure,  6. 
obscurity  of,  noted  bj'  the  Fathers,  8. 
hardness  of,  remarked  by  St.  Peter,  9. 
obscurity  of,  causes  of,  11.  means  by 
faith  the  whole  condition  of  the 
Gospel,  14,  15.  where  he  teaches 
that  faith  without  works  is  sufficient, 
and  why,  14.  teaches  justification  by 
faith  only,  no  where  except  in  con- 
troversy  with  Jews  or  eneniies  of  the 
Gospel,  61.  what  he  calls justification, 
called  by  other  sacred  writers  for- 
giveness,  ib.  had  a  peculiar  reason 
for  calling  man's  absolution,  justifi- 
cation, 62.  also  for  his  use  of  the 
word'faith,'  iö.reasons  of,  forhismode 
of  argument,  63.  especially  opposing 
Jews  who  clung  to  the  Mosaic  law, 
ib.  obliged  to  use  the  word  'justi- 
fication,' ib.  Gal.  2.  16—21,  not 
treating  of  the  moral,  but  of  ritual 
and  ^losaic  law,  93,  94.  his 
opponents  various,  140.  his  argu- 
ments  accordingly  dlfierent,  141. 
denies  justification  to  Mosaic  law 
only  as  it  was  viewed  carnally,  ib. 
liis  argument  from  natural  weakness 
of  man,  142.  is  treating  of  the 
whole  economy  of  human  salvation, 
ib.  calls  the  means  of  procuring 
that  '  faith,'  ib.  when  opposing 
Judaizing  Christians  uses  '  faith'  as 
opposed  to  Mosaic  rites,  143.  his 
meaning  of  the  word  'faith,'  144.  his 
enumeration  of  mortal  sins,  172,  in 
what  sense  ritual  works  rejected  by, 
347.  meaning  in  Rom.  7.  from  14, 
360,  ad  fin.  same  person  intended 
throughout,  373.  parenthesis  in  ver. 
25,  375.  analysis  of  the  chapter,376. 
objection  from  change  of  tense,  377. 


INDEX. 


409 


reason  of  the  change,  evident,  378. 
his  use  of  the  phrases  '  tobe  camal,' '  to 
walk  after  the  flesh,'  379.  of  the 
terms,  'camal,'  'spiritual,'  381.  ofthe 
figure  of  change  of  persons,  387. 
his  meaning  of  '  without  the  law,' 
388.  his  use  of  the  phrases  '  inner 
man,*  '  the  mind,'  '  the  flesh,' 
'outward,'  'old'  and  'new  man,' 
396,  397.  of '  delighting  in  the  law,' 
395.thanksgiving,ver.  25,  399.paren- 
thesis  in  ver.  25,  explained,  401. 

Pelagius,  heresy  of,  167,  207.  hisheresy 
on  the  subject  of  promise  of  eternal 
life  in  the  covenant  of  Sinai,  208. 
why  so  opposed  by  the  Catholics, 
209. 

Perseverance,  opinion  of  the  Church  of 
England  on,  309,  324. 

Peter,  St.,  refers  to  the  Valentinians,  10. 
always  considered  chief  of  the  Apo- 
stles,  32.  denial  of;  considered,  393. 

Phineas,  zeal  of,  27. 

Physicians,  may  he  trusted,  their 
remedies  refused,  114. 

Piscator,  77. 

Placans'  notion  of  justification  ex- 
amined,  133.  his  sermons  on  St. 
James's  Epistle,  134.  refuted,  135. 
his  notion  false  in  statement,  136. 
his  absurdities  exposed,  137.  notion 
false  in  assumption,  139. 

noA.jTeia,  meaning  of  the  word,  29. 

Popery,  charges  of,  refuted,  235,  236. 

Predesfinariaus,  condemned  by  Council 
of  Arles,  80. 

Predestinaiion,  speculations  on,  for- 
bidden  by  our  Church,  342.  opinion 
of  Augsburg  divines  on,  ib.  minute 
definitions  of,  made  in  Pelagian  con- 
troversy,  detrimental  to  the  Church, 
343. 

Primasius,  367. 

Propitiation,  of  Christ,  universal,  78, 
79.  if  denied,  an  end  to  preaching 
the  Gospel,  90. 

Prosper,  opinion  of,  on  love,  20. 

Protestants,  the  older,  understood 
phrase  'by  faith  only'  figuratively, 
291. 


R. 


Rabanus  Maurus,  328. 

Reconciliation,  Scriptural  meaning  of, 

85. 
Recovery,  after  sin,  not  infallible,  310. 
Redemption,  offered  to  all,  83. 
Reformation,  English,  not  Calvinistic, 

341. 
Regenernte,  may    and    do    fall    away, 

310,311.  throughout  Iloly  Scripture, 

declared  to  be  happy,  400.  not  called 


wretched  &c.  in  Hcly  Scripture, 
400. 

Remission,  implied  in  justification,  42. 
not  the  whole  of  justification,  43. 
granted  under  certain  conditions,  44. 

Repentance  without  love,  attrition,  22. 
nosure,  without  love  ofGod  and  hatred 
of  sin,  ib.  a  condition  of  justification, 
37.  precedes  it,  ib.  and  faith  con- 
ditions of  the  same  benefit,  40,  41. 
the  free  gift  of  God,  57.  works  of,  two- 
fold,  external,  internal,  59.  for  mortal 
sins  must  be  exact  and  perfectly 
worked  out,  176.  a  second  plank 
after  shipwreck,  177.  the  more 
difficult,  the  more  grievous  the  sin, 

180.  time  for,  no  where   promised, 

181.  for  mortal  sins,  what  kind  it 
should  be,  ib.  danger  of  death- 
bed,  ib.  true,  contains  seeds  of  all 
virtues,  254. 

Restitution,  an  external  act  of  repent- 
ance, 59. 

'  Right  to  eternal  life,'  explained,  358. 

'  Righteottsness,'  '  forgiveness  of  sins,' 
'justification,'  equivalent  terms,  46. 
none  without  repentance,  60.  dis- 
tinetion  of,  imputed  and  inherent 
treated  of  atlength,  72 — 88.  imputed, 
the  phrase  no  where  occurs  in  Holy 
Scripture,  72.  omitted  in  foreign 
Confessions,  ib.  of  Christ,  not  im- 
puted, but  that  for  which  our  faith 
is  imputed,  ib.  Catholic  doctrine  of, 

73.  doctrine  of  the  English  Church 
and  of  Gallican  Confession  on,  ib. 
Censurer  supposes  Christ's  really  to 
become  ours,  74. 

imputed,  Censurer's  view  of, 

overturns  whole  of  Gospel  economy, 

74.  cannot  stand  with  forgiveness  of 
sins  on  God's  part,  75.  incompatible 
with  repentance  on  our  part,  ib.  takes 
away  necessity  of  faith,  76,  77.  over- 
turns Catholic  doctrine  of  universal 
propitiation,  78.  defenders  of,  deny 
universal  satisfaction,  ib.  texts  ad- 
duced  by  Censurer  and  others  for 
their  view  of,  answered,  80 — 87. 

inherent,  denied  by  Censurer, 

87.  a  condition  of  justification,  88. 

our,  subordinate  to  Christ's,  depend- 

ent  on  it,  ib. 
Righteous  men,  liable  to  certain  sins, 

compatible    with    a  State    of   grace 

172. 
Riveta,  Opponent  of  Grotius,  325. 


Valvation,  Order  of,  dcscribed,  1  Pct. 
1.  2,  36.  eternal,  promised  only  liy 
the  Gospel,  142,  1 13. 


410 


INDEX. 


Sanctification,   owing  to   the   blood   of 

Christ,    36.  especially  attribated  to 

the    Spirit,  ib.  not   to  be  separated 

from  justification,  202. 
Sararia,  defence  against  Beza,  2.32. 
Satisfaction,    object  of,   to  make  room 

for  forgiveness,  56.  of  Christ  delivers 

no  die  ipso  facto,  öl.  but  uiider  the 

condition  of  repentance,  ih. 
Said,   case  of,  296.    once    a  righteous 

man,  315. 
Saxon  Confession,  written  to  be  proposed 

at  Council  of  Trent,  321. 
Schoolmen,    distinctions    of,  on    mortal 

aud  venial  sins,  175. 
Scotus,  175. 
Scriptiire,  obscurer  passages  of,  to  be 

explained  by  the  clearer,  6. 
SeduUus,  362,  367. 
Simon  Magus,  heresies  of,  9,  98. 
Sin,  mortal,  of.  173.  hatred  of,  found  in 

the  wicked,  391. 
Sins,  distinction  of,  to  be  maintained, 

321,  322. 
Smoutius,  bis  "Pater  Noster,"  78. 
Socinianism,     teaching     of     Censurer 

closely  allied  to,  56.  disclaimed,  148. 

Charge  of,  237. 
Socinian  interpretation  of  Rom.  3.  25, 

151. 
Socinus,  divinity  of  Christ  denied  bv, 

238.  also  His  satisfaction,  239,  240". 
'  Sold  unto   sin,'   argmnent    from    the 

phrase,  382.  how  used  by  Hebrews, 

383. 
Solißdians,  98. 

Spalato,  Archbishop  of,  170. 
Strasburg,    Confession   of,    history    of 

drawing  up  of,  299. 
Sitarex,  359. 
'2vfx(prifj.i,  395. 
^vvfiüeaöai  TCf  v6fi.a),  395. 
SüfiijSo/tai,  395. 
Supercrogation,  works  of,  no  room  for, 

in  the  law  of  Christ,  171. 
Si/mmachians,  9'k 

Si/nnd,  held  in  London,  1571,  329. 
'  ^'J^ysy '  of  Valentiuians,  326. 


Time-serving,  eharge  of,  answered,  346. 

Toledo,  Cardinal,  368. 

Trent,  Council  of,  236.  CatecMsm  of, 
368,  369. 

Trtiman,  Mr.,  his  book  against  the 
author,  162,  163.  defends  heresy  of 
Pelagius,  note  p.  209,  349. 

Trust,  absolute  and  conditional,  106. 
Censurer  rejects  both,  106,  107. 
conditional,  useless  without  Perform- 
ance of  the  condition,  107.  of  a 
Christian,  no  other  than  conditional, 
108.  Christian,  sometimes  means 
assent  to  the  Gospel  with  desire  of 
its  promises,  121.  used  so  by  divines, 
ib.  each  act  of,  in  its  wider  sense, 
compatible  with  the  case  of  one  not 
in  a  State  of  salvation,  122.  unavail- 
ing  without  eamest  desire,  123.  such 
the  same  as  faith  perfected  by  love, 
ib. 

Tully,  Dr.,  his  imperfect  esamination of 
the  Harmony,  225.  unfairness  of,  in 
quotations,  226.  his  book  a  mere 
declamation,  ib.  attacks  the  heads  of 
our  Church,  through  the  Hamionist, 
227,  228.  invidiousness  of  the  title 
of  his  book,  228.  preface  of  his  book, 
243.  decries  as  Gallios,  those  who 
abstain  from  the  controversy,  ib.  his 
theology,  subtile  and  fine-drawn,  ib. 
sobriety  of,  in  conducting  the  con- 
troversy, 248,  249.  view  of  State  of 
the  question,  250.  explanatjon  of 
the  point  at  issue,  257.  sophistry  of, 
refuted,  262.  unfair  in  quoting 
Articles  and  Homilies,  275,  276.  his 
Enchiridion,  308.  teaches  indefecti- 
bilitj'  of  faith,  ib.  considers  all  works 
opposed  to  grace,  344.  dishonestj'  of, 
in  his  quotations  exposed,  356,  357. 
his  three  assertions  against  the 
author  on  Rom.  7.  361.  object  of 
his  book,  369.  specialen  of  his 
philosophy,  389. 


Taylor,  Bishop,  368. 

Tertnllian,  5,   190,  197,  271.  rule  of, 

exaniined,  13. 
Text  of  Rom.  .3.   25.  considered,   149. 
Theodoret,  8,  361. 
Tlwophylact,  84,  87,  361. 
Tltief,  penitcnt,case  of,  does  not  favour 

the  Censurer's  views,  114,  eminent 

for  good  works,  114,  115. 
Thyafira,  Church  of,  178. 
Tiicnus,  121. 


Valence,  Sjiiod  of,  328. 

Valentinians,  derided  the  Catholics  for 

their  view  of  faith  and  works,  10. 

originated   dogma  of  indefectibility, 

326.  their  '  syzyg}','  326. 
Valentinus,  on  justification,  10.  gave  a 

new  dress  to  heresy  of  Simon,  ib. 
Vasquez,  360. 
Valablus,  213. 
Virtues,  Christian,  habits,   252.  partly 

infused,  partlj'  acquired,  ib.  253. 
fcsius,  G.,  127,207.givcsopinionofthc 

Fathers  on  perseverance,  324,  368. 


INDEX.  411 

W.  '  Worthiness '  explained,  345. 

Wurtemherg,  Confession  of,  297,  298. 
White,  Francis,  306. 

'  Willing'  and  '  perfonning,'  difference  Z. 

between,  390. 

Wittemhurg,  Synod  of,  321.  Zegerus,  144,  368. 

Works,  whatkind  excludedby  St.  Paul,  Zitinius,  Nicolas,  case  of,  400, 

146,   147.  what  and  in  what    sense  ZuingUus,  teaches  faith  in  its  complex 

excluded  from  justifying,  200,  201.  sense,  152 — 154. 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


CITED  AND  EXPLAINED  IN  THIS  VOLUME. 


GENESIS. 

3. 

15. 

333. 

5. 

24. 

214. 

15. 

4, 

5.            333. 

17. 

1. 

333. 

— 

10- 

-12.           34. 

25. 

23. 

334. 

44. 

16. 

49. 

45. 

26. 

119. 
EXODUS. 

14. 

31. 

119. 

19. 

9. 

119. 

24. 

3. 

191. 

33. 

19. 

338. 

34. 

7. 

202. 
LEVITICUS 

16. 

2. 

151. 

NUMBERS. 
7.     8,  9.  151. 

25.  12.  27. 

DEUTERONOMY. 
6.     5.  303. 

9.  23.  119. 

10.  12—16.         214. 


JOB. 

13.   15. 

100. 

27.     5. 

49. 
PSALMS. 

1.     1. 

318. 

2.   12. 

101. 

5.     4. 

336,  338. 

—      6. 

173. 

15. 

311. 

19.     4. 

340. 

—     7, 

8. 

211,212. 

22.     4. 

101. 

32.   10. 

101. 

37.     3, 

5. 

101,  117. 

—    40. 

101. 

50.     7- 

-17. 

214. 

51. 

181. 

—      4. 

49. 

—    16, 

17. 

214. 

52.     7. 

101. 

62.  10. 

101. 

—    12. 

130. 

78.  38. 

37,  38,51 

82.     3. 

52. 

106.  31. 

27. 

118.     8, 

9. 

101. 

146.     5. 

101. 

25. 

1. 

49,51,52. 

30. 

6. 

214. 
L  SAMUEL. 

15. 

22. 

214. 
IL  SAMUEL. 

19. 

23. 

51. 
I.  KINGS. 

1. 

21. 

81. 

2. 

8, 

9. 

51. 

20. 

11. 

357. 

21. 

20. 

380. 

II 

CHRONICLES 

13. 

18. 

101. 

PROVERBS. 

1.  23.  254. 

3.  5.  101. 

11.  25.  Sept.  365. 

24.  16.  319. 

26.  11.  315. 

28.  13.  181. 


] 

[SAIAH. 

1. 

10—21. 

214. 

— 

16—18. 

260. 

5. 

5,  6. 

312. 

2«. 

4. 

101. 

29. 

13. 

302. 

47. 

10. 

101. 

57. 

15. 

25  4. 

66. 

1,  2. 

254. 

414 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS. 


JEREMIAH. 

3. 

— 

177. 

7. 

21- 

-23. 

214. 

17. 

5, 

7. 

101. 

31. 

13. 

164. 
EZEKIEL. 

18. 

20. 

173. 

— 

21, 

23. 

261. 

— 

30, 

31. 

261. 

33. 

18. 

322. 
DANIEL. 

7. 

18. 

208. 
HOSEA. 

6. 

6. 

214. 

13. 

9. 

S36,  338. 
JOEL. 

2. 

12. 

269. 
JONAH. 

1. 

334. 

3. 

5. 

119. 
MICAH. 

3. 

4. 

323. 

ß. 

6- 

-8. 

214. 
MALACHI. 

1. 

2, 

3. 

334. 

I. 

MACCABEES 

1. 

15. 

383. 

ST.  MATTHEW. 

3. 

8. 

254. 

5. 

11, 

12. 

242. 

— 

16. 

71. 

— 

19, 

20, 

30.      96,  114. 

6. 

33. 

122. 

7. 

21, 

24, 

27.      96. 

11. 

19. 

49. 

12. 

37. 

61,  62,  97. 

15. 

8, 

9. 

.      302. 

16. 

27. 

130. 

— 

37, 

38. 

123. 

19. 

20. 

63. 

__ 

23- 

-26 

180. 

— 

26. 

95. 

22. 

31, 

32. 

205. 

— 

35- 

-40 

21. 

26. 

27, 

28. 

179. 

— 

41. 

247. 

— 

75. 

181. 

27. 

43. 

101. 
ST.  MARK. 

1. 

4. 

261. 

— 

15. 

37. 

ST.  LUKE. 

2.     9,  13. 

254. 

—    26. 

322. 

3.     3. 

62. 

7.  38. 

181. 

13.     3—5. 

60. 

—    24. 

122. 

14.  25—33. 

123. 

15.     7. 

42. 

18.  13,  14. 

47. 

21.  36. 

247. 

24.  27. 

48. 

—    46,  47. 

62,  261. 

ST.  JOHN. 

1.  12. 

130. 

2.  23,  24. 

114,  119. 

3.     3,  6. 

164,  397. 

6.     5,  6. 

164. 

—    29. 

63. 

—    44. 

254,  338. 

8.  24. 

152. 

9.  35. 

116. 

12.  42. 

114,  119. 

14.   16. 

151. 

14.  17—23. 

254. 

20.  31. 

116. 

ACTS. 

2.     3. 

33. 

—    38. 

37,254,261. 

3.  19. 

37,  130,  261. 

5.  31. 

48,  62. 

—    32. 

254. 

7.  38. 

192. 

8.  37. 

63,  116. 

—    22. 

261. 

10.     2. 

33. 

—      4. 

34. 

—    22. 

33. 

—    34,35. 

32. 

—    43. 

33. 

13.  38,  39. 

14,15,44,45,61,185 

15. 

178. 

—    10,  14. 

193,  195. 

16.  14. 

254. 

26.  17,18. 

47,  130. 

26.  20. 

254. 

ROMANS. 

1.  18. 

173. 

2.     6. 

130. 

—    12. 

156,  387. 

3.     5,  6,  7 

401. 

—     7. 

5,  386. 

—    20. 

132. 

—    23,  24. 

47. 

—    24. 

53,  57,  148. 

—    25. 

145,  149. 

—    27,  28. 

70,  89,  93,  136. 

4.     4—6. 

2.3. 

—      5. 

15.3. 

INDEX  OF  TEXTS. 


415 


4.     6,  7. 

29. 

3. 

26. 

130. 

—    6—8. 

46,  54. 

— 

28. 

333. 

—  13,  14,  16. 

28.  188. 

4. 

3. 

190. 

—  24. 

63. 

— 

6. 

253. 

—  20,  21,  24. 

152. 

— 

15. 

180. 

—     3,  8,  9,  22 

, 

— 

24. 

212. 

23,  24. 

72. 

5. 

6. 

17,  95,  103,  123 

5.     6,  10. 

142. 

142,  347. 

—     9,  10. 

48,  53,  85. 

— 

14. 

21. 

—  15. 

333. 

— 

19- 

-21.         172,  182. 

—  17,  18. 

28,  333. 

— 

20. 

380. 

—  19. 

54,  81. 

6. 

1. 

179. 

6.  23. 

164,  173. 

— 

8. 

127. 

7.  14-25. 

360,  ad  fin. 

— 

15, 

103,  142,  347. 

—  12,  14. 

197. 

—  18,  22,  23. 

397. 

EPHESIANS. 

—  25. 

308—401. 

1. 

7. 

47,  53,  150. 

8.     1. 

379. 



13. 

254. 

—     2—4. 

166. 

2. 

8. 

254. 

—    7. 

381. 

— 

12. 

141,  160. 

—  15. 

212. 

3. 

20. 

18. 

—  17. 

130. 

4. 

30. 

87. 

—  23. 

87. 

5. 

2. 

241. 

—  24. 

153. 

9.  15. 

338. 

PHILIPPIANS, 

10.     5. 

28. 

—  11. 

101. 

1. 

11. 

130. 

—  18. 

340. 

2. 

12. 

127,  247. 

11.  28,  29. 

348. 

3. 

4- 

-6.             63. 

13.   10. 

21. 

— 

8, 

9,  10.        87. 

14.     9. 

81. 

— 

23. 

348. 

—  28. 

89. 

16.  21. 

96. 

COLOSSIANS. 

1. 

14. 

47,  53,  150. 

I.  CORINTHIANS. 

— 

29. 

18. 

1.  30. 

86.  124. 

2. 

8, 

20.           190. 

4.     3—5. 

257. 

— 

11- 

-13.         348. 

—     4. 

49. 

3. 

11. 

333. 

6. 

311. 

— 

13. 

51. 

—    9,  10. 

172. 

— 

14. 

20. 

7.  19. 
9.  20,  21. 

95,  103,  347. 
387. 

I] 

[.  THESSALONIANS. 

11.  21. 

380. 

1. 

7. 

357. 

13.     2, 3. 

18,20,67,  114,256. 

— 

8. 

127. 

—  13. 

127. 

2. 

7. 

18. 

II.  CORINTHIANS. 

I.  TIMOTHY. 

1.     6. 

17. 

1. 

5. 

92. 

4.   12. 

17. 

3. 

16. 

49. 

—  16. 

398. 

6. 

17. 

101. 

—  17. 

127. 

5.  19,21. 

54,  74,  81,  83,  85. 

II.  TIMOTHY. 

7.   11. 

181. 

2. 

25. 

254. 

12.  20,  21. 

179,  380. 

4. 

8. 

357. 

GALATIANS. 

TITUS. 

12.  16,21. 

98. 

1. 

1, 

2.              165. 

3.     8,9,11,18,21.28. 

2. 

14. 

36. 

—     8,  16,  17. 

165. 

3. 

7. 

53. 

—  10. 

1.54,  155. 

—  13. 

84. 

HEBREWS. 

—  14. 

254. 

2. 

2. 

192. 

—  19. 

94. 

— 

1(1 

137. 

416 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS. 


3. 

311. 

5.     8, 

9. 

137,  141. 

6.     3. 

324. 

—     4- 

-6. 

180,  327. 

—  10. 

357. 

8.   10. 

166. 

—  12. 

48. 

9.     9. 

187. 

—  12. 

141. 

—  13. 

199. 

—  12- 

-14. 

36,  löO. 

—  18- 

-22. 

150. 

10.  26, 

27. 

180. 

11.     1. 

152. 

—  16. 

205. 
ST.  JAMES. 

2. 

61. 

2.  21- 

-23. 

7. 

—  24. 

139. 

3.     2. 

172. 
I.  PETER. 

1.     2. 

35. 

—     4. 

130. 

—  21. 

98. 

2. 

333. 

3.     4. 

66. 

4.  19. 

5.  5. 


117. 
254. 


II.  PETER. 

4.  39. 

8,  ll,note.  131. 

20—22.         315. 

8.  171. 


9. 

1,2. 
8. 
15,  16. 
5. 
4,5. 


JOHN. 

53,  261. 
177. 
173. 

116,  153. 
116. 
116,  152. 


ST.  JUDE. 
Ver.  14.    214. 


1.  5. 

2.  5. 

3.  20. 
7.  14,  15 
9.  2. 

22.  12. 

—  14. 


REVELATIONS. 
36. 
178,  247. 
253,  254. 
127. 


130. 
357. 


OXFORD : 
PRINTKD  BY  I.  SHRIMPTON. 


BOOKS 

PUBLISHED  BY 

PAEKEE  AND  CO. 

OXFORD,  AND  6  80UTHAMPT0N-8TREET,  STRAND,  LONDON. 


^f}cological,  See. 

EEV.  J.  WOEDSWORTH,  M.A. 
THE  ONE  RELIGION  :  Truth,  Holiness,  and  Peace  desired  by  the 
Nations,  and  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ.  EIGHT  LECTURES  delivered  before 
the  University  of  Oxford,  in  the  Year  1881.  By  John  Wokdswokth,  M.A., 
Tutor  of  Brasenose  College;  Prebendary  of  Lincoln  Cathedral,  and  Examining 
Chaplain  to  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln.     8vo.,  cloth,  10s.  6d. 

UNIVEESITY   SEKMONS   ON   GOSPEL    SUBJECTS.     By  the 
Kev.  John  Wordsworth,  M.A.     Fcap.,  cloth,  2s.  6d. 

EEV   PEOFESSOE  SANDAY 
THE  STUDY  OE  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  :   Its  Present  Position, 

and  some  of  its  Problems.  AN  INAUGURAL  LECTURE  delivered  on 
Feb.  20th  and  22nd,  1883.  By  W.  SANDAY,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Dean  Ireland's 
Professor  of  the  Exegesis  of  Holy  Scripture.     6i  pp.  Svo.,  in  wrapper,  2s. 

EEV.  A.  H.  HOEE,  M.A. 
EIGHTEEN  CENTURIES   OF  THE   CHUECH  IN  ENGLAND. 
By  the  Rev.  A.  H.  Höre,  M.A.,  Trinity  College,  Oxford.     712  pp.  Demy  8vo., 
cloth,  15s, 

EEV.  CANON  HOLE. 
HINTS   TO   PEEACHEES,  with   SEEMONS  and  ADDEESSES. 

By  S.  Reynolds  Hole,  Canon  of  Lincoln.    Second  Edition.    Post  8vo.,  cloth,  6s. 
EEV.  E.  F.  WILLIS,  M.A. 
THE   WOESHIP    OF    THE    OLD    COVENANT    CONSIDEEED 
MORE    ESPECIALLY    in    RELATION  to  that   of  the  NEW.      By  the 
Rev.  E.  F.  Willis,  M.A.     Post  8vo.,  cloth,  5s, 

AECHDEAOON   DENISON. 

NOTES    OF    MY    LIFE,     1805  —  1878.      By    George    Anthony 

Denison,  Vicar  of  East  Brent,  1845;  Archdeacon  of  Taunton,  1851.  Third 
Edition.    8vo,,  cloth,  12s. 

FEANCIS  PAGET,  M.A, 
CONCEENING   SPIEITUAL   GIFTS.      Three   Addresses  to   Can- 

(iidates  for  Holy  Orders  in  the  Diocese  of  Ely.  Together  with  a  Sermon.  By 
Francis  Paget,  M.A..  Senior  Student  of  Christ  Chnrch,  Oxford;  Examining 
Chaplain  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Ely.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  2s.  6d. 

THE   EEDEMPTION   OF   WOEK.     ADDEESSES  spoken  in  St. 

Paul's  Cathedral,  by  Francis  Paget,  M.A.,  Senior  Student  of  Christ  Church, 
Oxford,     52  pp,  Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  2s. 

BISHOP  OF  BAEBADOS, 
SEEMONS   PEEACHED  ON   SPECIAL  OCCASIONS.     By  John 

MiTCiiiNSON,  late  Bishop  of  Barbados.      Crown  8vo.,  cloth,  5s. 
THE  LATE  BISHOP  WILBEEFOECE. 
SEEMONS   PEEACHED   ON   YAEIOUS   OCCASIONS.     With   a 

Preface  by  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Ely.     8vo.,  cloth,  7s.  6d. 

[383.1.10.] 


TREOLOGICAL  WORKS,  Sfc.  (continued). 


THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER. 

AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  HISTOEY  OF  THE  SUCCES- 
SIVE  REVISIONS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER.  By 
James  Parker,  Hon.  M.A.  Oxon.     Crown  8vo.,  cloth,  12s. 

THE  FIRST  PRAYER-BOOK   OF   EDWARD  VI.,  COMP  ARE  D 

with  the  Successive  Revisions  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer;  witli  a  Concordance 
and  Index  to  the  Rubrics  in  the  several  editions.  By  the  same  Author.  New 
Edition.     Crown  8vo.,  cloth,  128. 

A  Cheap  Edition  of 

THE  FIRST  PRAYER-BOOK  as  issued  by  the  Äuthorlty  of  the 

Parliament  of  the  Second  Year  of  King  Edward  VI.  Third  Thousand.  24ma, 
limp  cloth,  Is. 

SECOND  PRAYER-BOOK  OF  EDWARD  YI.    Issued  1552.    Third 

Thousand.     24mo.,  limp  cloth,  Is. 

THE  LATE  REV.  J.  KEBLE,    M.A. 
STUDIA  SACRA.     COMMENTARIES  on  the  Introductory  Verses 

of  St.  John's  Gospel,  and  on  a  Portion  of  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans;  with 
otber  Theological  Papers  by  the  late  Rev.  John  Keble,  M.A.    8vo.,  cl.,  10s.  6d. 

OCCASIONAL    PAPERS   AND    REVIEWS.      By   the  late   Rev. 

John  Keble,  Author  of  "  The  Christian  Year."     Demy  8vo.,  cloth  extra,  12s. 

LETTERS  OF  SPIRITUAL  COUNSEL  AND  GUIDANCE.  By 
the  late  Rev.  J.  Keble,  M.A.,  Vicar  of  Hursley.  Edited  by  R.  F.  Wilson, 
M.Ä.,  Vicar  of  Rownhams,  &c.     Fourlh  Edition.     Post  8vo.,  cloth,  6s. 

OUTLINES  OF  INSTRUCTIONS  OR  MEDITATIONS  FOR 
THE  CHURCH'S  SEASONS.  By  John  Keble,  M.A,  Edited,  with 
a  Preface,  by  R.  F.  Wilson,  M.A.     Crown  8vo.,  toned  paper,  cloth,  ös. 

THE  LATE  BISHOP  OF  BRECHIN. 
AN    EXPL ANATION    OF    THE    THIRTY-NINE    ARTICLES. 

With  an  Epistle  Dedicatory  to  the  Rev.  E.  B.  Pusey,  D.D.  By  A.  P. 
FoRBEs,  D.C.L.,  Bishop  of  Brechin.     Sscond  Edition.     Crown  8vo.,  cloth,  12s. 

A  SHORT  EXPLANATION  OF  THE  NICENE  CREED,  for  the 

Use  of  Persons  beginning  the  Study  of  Theology.  By  Alexander  Penrose 
FoRBES,  D.C.L.,  Bishop  of  Brechin.     Second  Edition.    Crown  8vo.,  cloth,  6s. 

THE  LORD  BISHOP  OF  SALISBURY. 
THE   ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  HOLY   SPIRIT  IN  THE 

BODY  OF  CHRIST.  TheBampton  Lectures  for  1868.  By  George  .Moberly, 
D.C.L.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Salisbury.     Third  Edition.    Crown  8vo.,  cloth,  7s.  6d. 

SERMONS  ON  THE  BEATITUDES,  with  others  mostly  preached 
before  the  University  of  Oxford.  By  the  same.  Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo., 
cloth,  7s.  6d. 

REV.  WILLIAM  BRIGHT,  D.D. 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHURCH,  from  the  Edict  of  Milan,  a.d. 
313,  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.D.  451.     Second  Edition.     Post  8vo.,  lOs.  6d. 


TEEOLOGICAL    WORKS,  <^c.  {continued). 


CATEXA  AIJREA.     A  Commentary  on  the  Four  Gospels,  collected 

out  of  the  AVorks  of  the  Fathers  by  S.  Thomas  Aquinas.  Uniform  with  the 
Library  of  the  Fathers.     Re-issue.     Complete  in  6  vols.  8vo.,  cloth,  £,i  2s. 

THE  LAST  TWELVE  YERSES  OF  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDIIS'G 

TO  S.  MARK  Vindicated  against  Recent  Critical  Objectors  and  Established, 
by  John  W.  Btjegon,  B.D.,  Dean  of  Cliichester.  With  Facsimiles  of  Codex  S 
and  Codex  L.     8vo.,  cloth,  6s. 

THE   EXPLANATIOIS'  of  the  APOCALYPSE  by  YEXERABLE 

BEDA,  Translated  by  the  Rev.  EDW.  MARSHALL,  M.A„  F.S.A.,  formerly 
Fellow  of  Corpus  Christi  College,  Oxford.     180  pp.Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  3s.  6d. 

A   COMMENTARY   ON   THE   EPISTLES    AND    GOSPELS    IN 

THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER,  Extracted  from  Writings  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  anterior  to  the  Division  of  the  East  and 
West.  With  an  Introductory  Notice  by  the  Dean  of  St.  Paul's.  In  Two 
Vols.,  Crown  8vo.,  cloth,  10s.  6d. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  DIYINE  SERYICE ;  or,  An  Inquiry  con- 

cerning  the  True  ^lanner  of  Understanding  and  Using  the  Order  for  Morning  and 
Evening  Prayer,  and  for  the  Administration  of  the  Holy  Communion  in  the 
English  Church.  By  the  late  Yen.  Philip  Freeman,  Archdeacon  of  Exeter. 
A  New  Edition.     2  vols.,  8vo.,  cloth,  16s. 

THE  CATHOLIC  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  SACRIFICE  AND 
PARTICIPATION  OF  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  By  George  Trevor, 
D.D.,  M.A.,  Canon  of  York;  Rector  of  Beeford.  SecoJid  Edition,  revised  and 
enlarged,     Crown  8vo.,  cloth,  10s.  6d. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  CONFIRMATION.  By  Y^illiait  J"ackso>^  M.  A., 

Queen's  College,  Oxford;   Vicar  of  Heathfield,  Sussex.     Crown  8vo.,  cL,  2s.  6d. 

CHRISTIANITY  AS  TATJGHT  BY  S.  PAUL.  The  Bampton 
Lectures  for  1870.  To  which  is  added  an  Appendix  of  the  Continuous  Sense 
of  S.  Paul's  Epistles;  with  Notes  and  Metalegoniena.  By  the  Rev.  W.  J. 
Ieobs,  D.D.,  &c.    üecond  Edition,  witb  New  Pretace,  Svo.,  with  Map,  cloth,  9s. 

CHARACTERISTICS  OF  CHRISTIAN  MORALITY.  The  Bamp- 
ton Lectures  for  1873.  By  the  Rev.  I.  Gregory  Smith,  M.A.  Second  Edition. 
Crown  8vo.,  cloth,  3s.  6d. 

APOLLOS  ;  or,  THE  WAY  OF  GOD.  A  Plea  for  the  Religion  of 
Scripture.   By  A.  Cleveland  Coxe,  Bishop  of  New  York.     Crown  8vo.,  cl.,  5s. 

DISCOIJRSES  ON  PROPHECY.    In  which  are  considered  its  Stmc- 

ture,  Use,  and  Inspiration.  By  John  Davison,  B.D.  A  New  Edition. 
8vo.,  cloth,  9s. 

BEDE'S    ECCLESIASTICAL    HISTORY    OF    THE    ENGLISH 

NATION.  A  New  Translation  by  the  Rev.  L.  Gidley,  M.A.,  Chaplaia  of 
St.  Nicholas',  Salisbury.     Crown  8vo.,  cloth,  Gs. 

RICHARD  BAXTER  ON  THE  SACRAMENTS :  Holy  Orders, 
Holy  Baptism,  Confirmation,  Absolution,  Holy  Communion.     18mo.,  cloth,  Is. 


ANCIENT  DOCTRINAL   TREATISES,  Sfc. 


THE  CO^STITUTIO^S  A^D  CAXONS  ECCLESIASTICAL  OF 

THI':  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND,  Referred  to  their  Original  Sources,  and 
Illiistrated  with  Explanatory  Notes.  By  the  late  Mackenzie  E.  C.  Walcott, 
B.D.,  F.S.A.     Fcap.  Svo.,  clotli,  2s.  6d. 

A  CRITICAL  HISTOEY  OF  THE  ATHAIS'ASIAN  CREED,  by 

the  Rev.  D.  Waterland,  D.D.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  J.  R.  King,  M.A.  Fcap. 
8vo.,  cloth,  5s. 

THE    PASTORAL    EULE    OF    ST.  GREGORY.     Sancti  Gregorü 

Pap«  Regtulas  Pastoralis  Liber,  ad  Johannein  Episcopum  Civitatis  Raveunae. 
With  an  English  Translation.  By  the  Rev.  H.  R.  Bramley,  M.A.,  Fellow  of 
Magdalen  College,  Oxford.     Fcap.  Svo.,  cloth,  6s. 

THE  DEFINITIOKS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  FATTH  and  Canons  of 

Discipline  of  the  first  four  General  Conncils  of  the  Universal  Church.  In  Greek 
and  English.     Fcap.  Svo.,  cloth,  2s.  6d. 

DE  FIDE  ET  SYMBOLO  :  Documenta  qufedam  nee  non  Aliquonini 

SS.  Patrnm  Tractatus.  Edidit  Carolus  A.  Heurtley,  S.T.P.,  Dom.  Mar- 
garetae  Prselector,  et  jEdis  Christi  Canonicus.     Fcap.  Svo.,  cloth,  4s.  6d. 

S.AURELIUS  AUGUSTINUS,  Episcopus  Hipponensis,  de  Catechi- 

zandis  Kudibns,  de  Tide  Rernm  quaj  non  videntur,  de  Utilitate  Credendi.  In 
TJsum  Juniorum.  Edidit  C.  Marriott,  S.T.B.,  Olim  Coli.  Oriel.  Socius.  New 
Edition.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  3s.  6d. 

ATTALECTA   CHRISTIANA,  In  usum   Tironura.     Exeerpta,    Epi- 

stolae,  &c.,  ex  Eusebii,  &c.  ;  S.  Ignatit  Epistolae  ad  Smyrnasos  et  ad  Poly- 
carpum  ;  E.  S.  Clementis  Alexandri  Paedagogo  exeerpta;  S.  Athanasii 
Sermo  contra  Gentes.  Edidit  et  Annotationibus  illustravit  C.  Marriott, 
S.T.B.      Svo.,  10s.  6d. 

S.  PATRIS  NOSTRI  S.  ATHANASII  ARCHIEPISCOPI  ALEX- 

ANDRIiE  DE  INCARNAT10NE  VERBI,  ejusque  Corporali  ad  nos  Ad- 
ventn.  With  an  English  Translation  by  the  Rev.  J.  Ridgway,  B.D.,  Hon, 
Canon  of  Christ  Church.     Fcap.  Svo.,  cloth,  5s. 


OXFOED    SEEIES    OF    DEVOTIONAL  WORKS. 

Fcap.  Svo.,  printed  in  Red  and  Black,  on  toned  paper. 


The  Imitation  of  Christ. 

FOUR  BOOKS.  By  Thomas  a  Kem- 
Pis.   Cloth,  4s.— Pocket  Edit.,  32mo.,  cl.,  Is. 

Andrewes'  Devotions. 

DEVOTIONS.  By  the  Right  Rev. 
Father  in  God,  Launcelot  Andrewes. 
TransUitcd  from  the  Grcek  and  Latin,  and 
arranged  anew.    Antique  cloth,  5s. 


Taylor's  Holy  Livingr. 
THE      RULE    AND     EXERCISES 
OF   HOLY   LIVING.    By  Bishop   Jerrmy 
Taylor.      Antique  cloth,   4s.— Pocket  Edi- 
tion, 32rao.,  cloth,  Is. 

Taylor's  Holy  Dying. 
THE      RULE     AND     EXERCISES 
OF    IIOLY    DYING.     By  Bisuop    Jerjemy 
Taylor.     Antique  cloth,  4s.— Pocket  Edi- 
tion, 32uio.,  cloth,  Is. 


DEVOTIONAL. 


OXFOED  SEEIES  OF  DEVOTIONAL  "WOEKS  [conünued). 


Taylor's  Golden  Grove. 

THE  GOLDEX  GROVE;  a  Choice 
Manual,  containingr  ■«"hat  is  to  be  Believed, 
Practised,  and  Dedred,  or  Prayed  for.  By 
Bishop  Jeremt  Taylor.  Printed  uniform 
■with  "  Holy  Living  and  Holy  Dying."  An- 
tique clolh,  3s.  6d. 

Sutton's  Meditations. 

GODLY  MEDITATIONS  UPON 
THE  MOST  HOLY  SACRAMENT  OF  THE 
LORD'S  SUPPER.  By  Christopher  Svt- 
TON,  D.D.,  late  Prebend  of  Westminster. 
A  new  Edition.    Antique  cloth,  5s. 

Ijaud's  Devotions. 

THE  PRIVATE  DEVOTIONS  of 
De.  William  Laid,  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury,  and  Martyr.    Antique  cloth,  5s. 

Spinckes'  Devotions. 
TRUE    CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND 

MAN'S  COMPAXION  IN  THE  CLOSET  ; 
er,  a  complete  Manual  of  Private  Devotions, 
coUected  from  the  Writings  of  eminent  Di- 
vines of  the  Chmxh  of  England.  Antique 
cloth,  4s. 


Ancient  Collects. 

ANCIENT  COLLECTS  and  OTHER 

PRAYERS.     Selected    for  Devotional   use 

from  various   Rituals.     By   "Wm.   Beight, 

D.D.    Antique  cloth,  äs. 

Devout  Cotamunicant. 
THE  DEVOUT  COMMUNICAXT 
esemplified  in  his  Behaviour  before,  at,  and 
after  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper : 
Practically  suited  to  all  the  Parts  of  that 
Solemn  Ordinance.  Ith  Edition,  retised. 
Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  4s. 

EIKflN  BA2IAIKH. 

THE  PORTRAITURE  OF  HIS 
SACRED  MAJESTY  KIXG  CHARLES  I. 
in  his  Solitudes  and  Sufferings.  Neic Edition, 
■with  Preface  by  C.  M.  Phillimore  [On  the 
eTidence  that  the  book  was  wriiten  by 
Charles  I.,  and  not  by  Gauden].  Antique 
cloth,  5s. 


THE  PASTOE  IX  HIS  CLOSET ;  or,  A  Help  to  the  Devotions 

of  the  Clergy.  Ey  John  Aumstrong,  D.D.,  late  Lord  Bishop  of  Grahamstown. 
Third  Edition.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  2s. 

PEATEES  POE   MAEEIED  PEES0:N^S.     From  Yarious  Sources, 

chiefly  from  the  Ancient  Liturgies.  Selected  and  edited  by  Charles  Ward, 
Rector  of  Maulden.  Third  Edition,  with  red  lines  on  toned  paper,  24rmo., 
cloth,  4s.  6d. 

A  CHEAP  EDITION,  on  white  paper.    24mo.,  cloth,  2s.  6d. 


DAILY  STEPS  TOWAEDS  HEAYEN ;   or,  Practical  Thoughts  on 

the  Gospel  History,  for  every  day  in  the  year.  With  Titles  and  Character  of 
Christ.  Newly  printed  with  antique  type.  32mo.,  roan,  gilt  edges,  2s.  6d. ; 
niorocco,  5s. 

LAEGE    TYPE    EDITION".     Square   crown   8vo.,    cloth 


autique,  red  edges,  5s. 

THE   HOHES;    heing  Prayers   for  the  Third,    Sixth,    and   Xinth 

Hours;  with  a  Preface,  and  Heads  ot  Devotion  for  the  Day.  Seventh  Edition. 
32mo.,  in  parchment  wrapper,  Is. 

ANiSTJS  DOMIXI.     A  Prayer  for  each  Day  of  the  Year,  founded  on 

a  Te.xt  of  Holy  Scripture  (addressed  to  the  Second  Person  in  the  Trinity,  and 
therefore  supplementary  to  other  devotions).  Ey  Christina  G.  Kossetti. 
32tno.,  cloth,  3s.  6d. 

PEIVATE   PEAYEES   FOE   A   ^'EEK.     Compiled   by   William 

BniGHT,  D.D.,  Cancn  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford.  9t)  pp.,  Fcap.  8vo.,  limp 
cloth,  Is.  6d. 

DEVOTIONS  BEFOEE  AXD  AFTEE  HOLY  COMMUXIOX. 

With  Prefatory  Note  by  Keble.  Sixtk  Edition,  in  red  and  black,  on  toned 
paper,  32mo.,  cloth,  2s,— With  the  Service,  32mo.,  cloth,  2s.  6d. 


6  DEVOTIONAL,  SERMONS,  dx. 

DEVOTIONAL  {continued). 

MEDITATI0:N'S  FOR  THE  forty  DATS  OF  LENT.  With 
a  Prefatory  Notice  by  the  Aechbishop  of  Dublin.     18mo.,  cloth,  2s.  6d. 

THE  EVERT-DAY  COMPANION.     By  the  Rev.  W.  H.  Ridlet, 

M.A.,  Rector  of  Hambleden,  Bucks.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  3s. 

THOTJGHTS  DURING  SICKNESS.     By  Robeet  Brett,  Autlior  of 

"Tlie  Doctrine  of  the  Gross,"  &c.     Fcap.  8vo.,  limp  cloth,  Is.  6d. 

BREYIATES  FROM  HOLY  SCRIPTIJRE.  arranged  for  use  by  the 

Bed  ofSickness.     By  the  Rev.  G.  Arden,  M.A.,  Rector  ot  Winterborne-Canie  ; 
Domestic  Chaplain  to  the  Right  Hon.  the  Earl  of  Devon.  2nd  Ed.  Fcap.  8vo.,  2s. 

DEYOTIONS  FOR  A  TIME  OF  RETIREMENT  AND  PRAYER 

FOR  THE  CLERGY.     New  Edition,  revised.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  Is. 

PRAYERS  IN  USE  AT  CUDDESDON  COLLEGE.     Third  JEdition, 

revised  and  enlarged.     Fcap.  Svo.,  2s. 

INSTRUCTIONS  ON  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST,  AND  DEVO- 
TIONS FOR  HOLY  COMMUNION,  being  Part  V.  of  the  Clewer  Maunals, 
by  Rev.  T.  T.  Caetee,  M.A.,  late  Rector  of  Clewer.     18mo.,  cloth,  2s. 

THE    SERVICE -BOOK    OF    THE    CHURCH    OF    ENGLAND, 

arranged  according  to  the  New  Table  of  Lessons.     Crown  Svo.,  roan,  123,; 
and  in  various  bindings. 

SERMONS,  &c. 

ILLUSTRATIONS    OF    FAITH.      Eight  Plaia   Sermons,  hy  the 

late  Rev.  Edward  Monro.     Fcap.  Svo.,  cloth,  2s.  6d. 

Uniform,  and  hy  the  same  Author, 


Plain  Seemons  on  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Peatee.     Fcap.  Svo.,  cloth,  5s. 

Seemons  on  New  Testament  Chaeac- 
TEES.     Fcap.  Svo.,  4s. 


HiSTOEICAL  AND  PeACTIOAI,  SeEMONS 
ON  THE  SUFFEEINGS  AND  ReSUE- 
EECTION  OF  OUE  LOED.     2  vols.,  Fcap. 

Svo.,  cloth,  10s. 


CHRISTIAN  SEASONS.— Short  and  Piain  Sermons  for  every  Sunday 

and   Holyday  throughout  the  Year.     4  vols.,  Fcap.   Svo.,  cloth,  10s. — Second 
Series,  4  vols.,  Fcap.  Svo.,  cloth,  10s. 

SHORT    SERMONS    FOR   FAMILY   READING,    following    the 

Order  of  tlie   Christian   Seasons.     By  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Burgon,  B.D.     2   vols., 
Fcap.  Svo.,  cloth,  8s. — Second  Series,  2  vols.,  Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  8s. 

PAROCHIAL  SERMONS  AND  SERMONS  FOR  FASTS  AND 
FESTIVALS.     By  the  late  Bp. Armstrong.     Fcap.  Svo.,  5s.  each  volume. 

SERMONS    ON    VARIOUS   OCCASIONS.     By  the   late   Eev.   J. 

Keble,  M.A.     Svo.,  cloth,  6s. 

THE  AWAKING  SOUL,  as  Sketched  in  the  130th  Psalm.     Ad- 

dresses  delivered  in   Lent,  1877.     By  E.  R.  Wilberforce,  M.A.  [the  Rt.  Rev. 
the  Lord  Bishop  of  Newcastle].     Crown  Svo.,  limp  cloth,  2s.  6d. 

OXFORD  LENT  SERMONS,  1857-60,  63,  65-69,  70-71.  Cloth, 
5«.  each. 

XX.  SHORT  ALLEGORICAL  SERMONS.     By  B.  K.  W.  Pearse, 

ÄLA..  and  \V.  A.  Gray,  M.A.     Sixth  Edition.     Fcap.  8vo.,  sewed,  Is. 

SERMONS  AND  ESSAYS  ON  THE  APOSTOLTCAL  AGE.  By 
tlie  late  Very  Rev.  Arthur  Penruyn  Stanley,  D.D.  Third  Edition,  revised. 
Crown  Svo.,  cloth,  7s.  6d. 


ENQLISH  DIVINES.  7 

orh  of  i\[t  Standard  ßiTrjltsli  giüines, 

PUELISHED  IX  THE  LIBRAEY  OF  A:sGLO-CATHOLIC  THEOLOGY, 

AT   THE   FOLLOWTN'G    PKICES   IN    CLOTH. 

AJNDEEWES'  (BP.)  COMPLETE  WOPtKS.     11  vols.,  8yo.,  £3  7s. 
The  Sekmoxs.     (Separate.)     5  vols.,  £1  15s. 

BEYEEIDGE'S  (BP.)  COHTLETE  WORKS.    12  vols.,  8vo.,  £4  4s. 

The  Exglish  Theological  Works.     10  vols.,  £3  10s. 
BRAMHALL'S  (ABP.)  WORKS,  ^YITH  LIFE  AXD  LETTERS,  &c. 

5  vols.,  8vo.,  £\  lös.     (Vol.  2  cannot  be  sold  separateiy.) 

BULL'S  (BP.)  HARMOXT  OX  JUSTLFICATIOX.  2  vols.,  8vo..  lOs. 

DEFE:NTE  OF  THE  XICEXE  CREED.  2  yoIs.,  10s. 

JTJDGilEXT  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHLTICH.    5s. 

C0SI:N^'S  (BP.)  WORKS  COMPLETE.     5  vols.,  Svo.,  £1  10s. 
CRAKAJS^THORP'S     DEFEXSIO     ECCLESL^      ANGLICA^^. 

8vo.,  7s. 

FRAXK'S  SERMOXS.     2  vols.,  Svo.,  10s. 

FORBES'  COI^^SIDERATIOXES  MODESTE.     2  vols.,  Svo.,  12s. 
GUXN'IN'G'S  PASCHAL,  OR  LE]^T  FAST.     Svo.,  6s. 
HAATMOXD'S  PRACTICAL  CATECHIS:m:.     Svo.,  5s. 

MISCELLAXEOUS  THEOLOGICAL  WORKS.    5s. 

THIRTY-Oi^E  SERMONS.     2  Parts.     lOs. 

HICKES'S  TWO  TREATISES  ON  THE  CHRISTIAN  PRIEST- 

HOOD.     3  vols.,  8vo.,  lös. 

JOHNSOX'S  (JOHN)  THEOLOGICAL  WORKS.  2  vols.,  Svo.,  10s. 

EXGLISH  CANONS.     2  vols.,  12s. 

LArD'S  (ABP.)  COMPLETE   AYORKS.     7  vols.,  (9  Parts,)  Stc, 
£2  17s. 

L'ESTRANGE'S  ALLIANCE  OF  DIYINE  OFFICES.    Svo.,  6s. 

MARSHALL'S    PENITENTIAL     DISCIPLINE.      (Tliis    volume 

cannot  be  sold  separate  l'roni  the  coniplete  set.) 

NICHOLSON'S  (BP.)  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  CATECHISM,  (This 

volume  cannot  be  sold  separate  from  the  complete  set.) 

OYERALL'S  (BP.)  CONYOCATION-BOOK  OF  1606.     Svo.,  5s. 
PEARSON'S    (BP.)    YINDICLE    EPISTOLARUM   S.  IGNATII. 

2  vols.  bvo.,  10s. 

THORNDIKE'S    (HERBERT)    THEOLOGICAL    WORKS    COM- 
PLETE,    6  vols.,  (10  Parts,)  8vo.,  £2  10s. 

WILSON'S   (BP.)   WORKS    CO^IPLETE.      With   LIFE,   by   the 
late  Rev.  J.  Keble.     7  vols.,  (8  Parts,)  8vo.,  £Z  3s. 

A  complete  sef,  80  Vols.  in  88  Parts,  £21. 


POETST,  ^c. 


THE  AUTHORIZED  EDITI0N8  OF 
THE    CHRISTIAN    YEAR, 
With  the  Author's  latest  Corrections  and  Idditions. 

NOTICE. — Messrs.  Parker  are  the  sole  Publishers  of  the  Editions  of  the 
"Christian  Year"  issued  with  the  sanction  and  under  the  direction  of  the 
Author's  representatives.     All  Editions  without  their  imprint  are  unauthorized. 


Small  4to.  Edition,    s.    d. 
Handsomely  printed  on  toned 
paper,  with  red  border  lines 
and    initial   letters.     Cloth 
extra  .         .         .         .  10     6 

Demy  8vo.  Edition. 
Cloth 6     0 

FooLscAP  8vo.  Edition. 
Cloth 3     6 

24mo.  Edition. 
Cloth,  red  lines      .         .         .26 


32mo.  Edition. 
Cloth  boards,  gilt  edges 
Cloth,  linip    . 


4Smo.  Edition. 


Cloth,  limp 
Roan     . 


Facsimile  of  the  Ist  Edi 
TioN,  with  a  list  of  the 
variations  from  the  Oriofi 
nal  Text  which  the  Author 
made  in  later  Editions 
2  vols.,  12mo.,  boards 


s.  d. 
1  6 
1     0 


0  6 

1  6 


7     6 


TTie  ahove  Editions  (except  the  Facsimile  of  the  First  Edition)  are  kept  in 
a  variety  of  Undings,  which  may  be  ordered  through  the  Trade,  or  direet  froin 
the  Publishers.  The  chief  Undings  are  Morocco  piain,  Moroceo  Antique,  Calf 
Antique,  and  Vellum,  the  prices  varying  according  to  the  style. 

By  the  same  Author. 

LYEA.  IXNOCEIv^TIII:M.  Thoughts  in  Verse  on  Christian  Chil- 
dren.     Thirteenth  Edition.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  5s. 

24mo.,  cloth,  red  lines,  3s.  6d. 

48mo.  edition,  limp  cloth,  6d.;  cloth  boards,  Is. 

MISCELLAKEOUS  POEMS  BY  THE  REV.  JOHI^  KEBLE,  M.A., 

Vicar  of  Hursley.     [With  Preface  by  G.  M.]     Third  Edition.    Fcap.,  cloth,  6s. 

THE  PSALTER,  OR  PSALMS  OF  DAVID:  In  EngHsh  Verse. 
Fourth  Edition.    Fcap.,  cloth,  6s. 

18mo.,  cloth,  Is. 

The  above  may  also  be  had  in  various  bindings. 


A  CONCORDANCE   TO    THE   "CHRISTIAN    YEAR."      Fcap. 

8vo.,  toned  paper,  cloth,  4s. 

MUSIjS'GS  OX  the  "  CHRISTIA:N'  year  ;"  tvith  gleanings 

FKOM  Thirtt  Years'  Intercocrse  with  the  late  Rev.  J.  Keble,  by  CHAR- 
LOTTE iM.  YOXGE  ;  to  which  are  added  Recoliections  of  Hursley,  by 
FRANCES  M.  WILBRA  H  AM.     Sccond  Edition.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  7s.  6d. 

MEMOIR   OF   THE   REV.  J.  KEBLE,  M.A.     By  Sir  J.  T.  Cole- 

BiDOE.     Fourth  and  Cheaper  Edition.     Post  Svo.,  cloth,  6s. 

THE  CHILD'S   CHRISTIAN  YEAR.    Hymna  for  every  Sunday 
and  Holyday  throughout  the  Y«ar.     Cheap  Edition,  18mo.,  cloth,  Is. 


CEURCH  POBTRY,  AND  PAROCHIAL.  9 

Cfjurrfj  portrg, 

REV.  ISAAC   WILLIAMS. 

Uniform  Edition,  32mo.,  cloth,  each  2s.  6d, 

THE   CATHEDRAL ;    or,   The    THE  CHRISTIAN  SCHOLAR. 

En'iland    ^""^    ^P°^'°'''=     ^'^""'"''^     ^"   ,    HT:y:XS     FROil    THE    PARISIAX 

THE"   BÄPTISTERT;    or,    The  i      BREVIARY. 

Way  of  Eternal  Life.  ,  THOUGHTS   IN  FAST  TEARS. 

THE  SEVEN"  DATS   OF   THE   OLD    AXD  XEW  CREATI0:N^. 

Fcap.  Svo.,  cloth,  3s.  fid. 

THE  BAPTISTERY;  or,  The  Way  of  Eternal  Life.    With  Plates  by 

BoETius  A  BoLswERT.     Fcap.  Svo.,  cloth,  7s.  6d. 

BISHOP  CLEVELAND  COXE. 
CHRISTIAN   BALLADS  AND  POEMS.     By  Abthto  Cleveland 

CoxE,    D.D.,    Bishop    of  Western   New   York.      A   New  Edition.     Fcap.  8vo., 
cloth,  3s.     Also  selected  Poems  in  a  packet,  32mo.,  Is. 

THE  BELLS  OF  BOTTEYILLE  TOWER;    A  Christmas  Story  in 

Verse:  and  other  Poems.     By  Frederick  G.  Lee,  Autbor  of  "  The  Martyrs  of 
Vienne  and  Lvons,"  "  Petronilla,"  &c.  Fcap.  Svo.,  with  Illusfrations,  cloth,  4s. 6d. 

HYMNS  OX'THE  LITAXY,  by  Ada  Cambridge.    Fcap.  8vo.,  cl.,  3s. 

THE  INNER  LIFE.  Hymns  on  the  "Imitation  of  Christ,"  by 
Thomas  A'Kempis  ;  designed  especially  for  Use  at  Holy  Communion.  By  the 
Author  of  "Thoughts  from  a  Girl's  Life,"  &c.      Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  3s. 


THE  CONFIRilATION  CLASS-BOOK:    Notes  for  Lessons,  with 

Appendix,  containing  Questions  and  Suminaries  for  the  U;e  of  the  Caudidates. 
By  E.  yi.  Holmes,  LL.B.     Fcap.  Svo.,  limp  cloth,  2s.  6d. 

Also,  The  Qwestions  and  Summaries  separate,  4  sets,  Is.  each. 
THE    CATEC EIST'S  MANUAL;  with  an  Introduction  by  the  lata 
SAircTEL  WiLBEKFOECE,   D.D.,    Lord   Bishop  of  Winchester.     By   the   same. 
Sixth  Thotisand,  revised.     Crown  8vo.,  limp  cloth,  5s. 

SUNDAY  -  SCHOOL    EXERCISES,   CoUected    and    Revised    from 

Manuscripts  of  Burghclere  School-children,  nnder  the  teacliing  of  the  Rev.  W. 
R.  Barter,  late  Rector  of  Highclere  and  Burghclere;  Edited  by  Ins  Son-in-law, 
tlie  BisHOP  OF  St.  Andrew's.     S<'cond  Edition.     Crown  Svo.,  cloth,  5s. 

A  MANUAL  OF  PASTORAL  YISITATION,  intended  for  the  Use 

of  the  Clergy  in  their  Visitation  of  the  Sick  and  Afflicted.  By  a  Parish  Priest. 
Dedicated,  bj'  permission,  to  His  Grace  the  Arclibishop  of  Dublin.  Second 
Edition.     Crown  Svo..  limp  cloth,  3s.  6d. ;  roan,  4s, 

SHORT   RE ADINGS   FOR   SUNDAY.     By  the  Author  of  "Foot- 

prints  in  the  Wilderness."  With  Twelve  Illustrations  on  Wood.  Tliird  Tuou- 
sand.    Square  Crown  Svo.,  cloth,  3s.  (id. 

FABER'S  STORIES  FROM  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.    With  Four 

Illustrations.     Square  Crown  Svo.,  cloth,  4s. 

A  SERIES  OF  WALL  PICTURES  illustrating  the  New  Testament. 

The  Set  of  16  Pictures,  size  22  inches  by  19  inches,  V2&. 

COTTAGE    PICTURES    FROM    THE     OLD    TESTAMENT. 

A  Series  of  Twenty-eight  large  folio  Engravings,  brilliantly  coloured  by  hand. 
The  Set,  7s.  6d.— Also  from  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  A  Series  of  twenty- 
eight.      Ulliform.     The  Set,  7s.  6d. 

Upwards  0/^8,000  Sets  of  these  Cottage  Pictures  have  been  sola. 

TWELYE  SACRED  PRINTS  FOR  PAKOCHIAL  USE.     Printed 

in  Sepia,  with  Ornamental  Borders.    The  Set,  One  Sliiliing;  ox  earh.  One  Penny. 
Upwards  of  100,000  of  these  Prints  have  alreadij  been  sold. 


10  MISCHLLANEOUS. 


E.  GODFREY  FAUSSETT,  M.A. 
THE  SYMMETEY  OE  TIAIE  :   bting  an  Outline  of  Bitlical  Chron- 

ology  adapted  to  a  Coiitinuous  Succession  of  Weeks  of  Years.  From  ihe 
Creation  of  Adam  to  ibe  Exodus.  By  R.  Godfkey  Faussett,  M.A.,  Student 
of  Christ  Church.     Demy  4to.,  in  wrapper,  10s.  6d. 

THE   ELEMENTS  OF  PSYCHOLOGY. 

THE  ELEMENTS  OF  PSYCHOLOGY,  0^  THE  PRINCIPLES 
OF  BENEKE,  Stated  and  Illustrated  in  a  Simple  and  Populär  Manner  by 
De.  G.  Haue,  Professor  in  tlie  Medical  College,  Philadelphia ;  t'ourth  Edition, 
considerably  Alteved,  Improved,  and  Enlarged,  by  Johann  Gottiieb  Deess- 
XEE,  lata  Director  of  the  Normal  School  at  Bautzen.  Translated  from  the 
German.     Post  8vo.,  cloth,  6s. 

REV.  CANON  GREGORY. 
AEE  WE  BETTEE  THAI^  OUE  EATHEES?   or,  A  Comparative 

View  of  the  Social  Position  of  England  at  the  Revolution  of  1688,  and  at  the 
Present  Time.  FOUR  LECTURES  delivered  in  St.  Paul's  Cathedral.  By 
ROBEET  Geegoet,  M.A.,  Cauon  of  St.  Paul's.     Crown  8vo.,  2s.  6d. 

PROFESSOR  GOLDWIN  SMITH. 
lEISH  HISTOEY  AND  lElSH  CHAEACTEE.     Cheap  Edition. 

Fcap,  8vo.,  sewed,  Is.  6d. 

LECTÜEES    ON    THE    STUDY    OF    HISTOEY.      Delivered    in 

Oxford,  1859 — 61.     Second  Edition.     Crown  Svo.,  linip  cloth,  3s.  6d. 

THE  EEOEGANIZATION  OF  THE  IJMYEESITY  OF  OXFOED. 

By  GoLDWiN  Smith.     Post  8vo.,  limp  cloth,  2s. 

THE   EMPIEE.      A    Series   of  Letters  pnbHshed   in    "The   Daily 

Kews,"  1862,  1863.     Post  8vo.,  cloth,  price  6s. 

MRS.ALGERNON  ZINGSFORD. 
EOSAMUNDA  THE    PEINCESS :    An  Historical  Eomance  of  the 

Sixth  Century;  the  Crocus,  ^VATER-REED,  RosE  and  Marigold,  Painter  of 
Venice,  Noble  Love,  Romance  et  a  Ring,  and  otht-r  Tales.  By  Mrs.  Alger- 
NON  KiNGSFüRD.     8vo.,  cloth,  witli  Twenty-four  lllustraiions,  6s. 

THE  AUTHOR  OF  "CHARLES  LOWDER,"  "LIFE  OF  S. TERESA,"  &c. 
THE  EXILE   FEOM   PARADISE,  translated  by  the  Author  of  the 

"Life  of  S.  Teresa."     Fcap.,  cloth,  Is.  6d. 

VILHELM   THOMSEN. 
THE  EELATIOXS  BETWEEX  AXCIENT  EÜSSIA  AND  SCAN- 

DINAVIA,  and  the  Origin  of  the  Russian  State.  THREE  LECTURES  de- 
livered at  the  Taylor  Institution,  Oxford,  in  May,  1876,  by  Dr.  Vilhelm 
Thomsen,  Professor  at  tiie  University  of  Copenhageu.    Small  8vo.,  cloth,  3s.  6d. 

BERNARD  BOSANQUET,  M.A. 
ATHENIAX   CONSTITUTION AL   HISTOEY,    as  Ecpresentcd  in 

Grote's  "  History  of  Greece,"  critically  exaniitied  by  G.  F.  Schümann  :  Trans- 
lated, with  the  Author's  permis.sion,  by  Bernakd  Bosanquet,  M.A.,  Fellow 
aud  Tutor  of  University  College,  Oxford.     8vo.,  cloth,  3s,  6d. 

E.  C.  PHILLIPS. 

THE  ORPHANS.  By  E.  C.  PniLurs.  Autlior  of  "Bunchy," 
"  Birdie  and  her  Dog,"  "Hilda  and  her  Doli,"  "  Meyrick's  Promise,"  &c. 
Third  Edition,  revised  by  the  Author,  with  eight  full-page  Illustrations. 
S<jujue  erown  8vo.,  cloth,  4s. 


ARCEITECTURE  AND  ARCE2E0L0OT.  11 


EEV.  J.  C.  BLOMFIELD,   M.A. 
HI3T0RY   OF   THE    PRESEXT    DE-iXERT    OF    BICESTER, 

OXON.  Conipiled  by  J.  C.  Blohfield,  M.A.,  Rector  of  Launton,  and  Rural 
Dean.     84  pp.  Medium  -ito.,  in  wrapper,  wich  Plans  and  Woodcuts,  5s. 

SIB  G.  G.  SCOTT,  F.S.A. 
GLEANINGS  FROH  WESTAIIXSTER  ABBEY.     By  Sib  Geoege 

Gilbert  Scott,  R.A.,  F.S.A.  Witii  Apnendices  supplying  Further  Partica- 
lars,  and  completing  the  History  of  the  Abbey  Buildings,  by  Several  Writers. 
Second  Edition,  enlarged,  containing  many  new  lUustrations  by  O.  Jewitt  and 
others.     Medium  8vo.,  10s.  6d. 

THE  LATE  CHARLES  WINSTON. 

AX  IXQUIRY  IXTO  THE  DIFFEREXCE  OF  STYLE  OBSERY- 
ABLE  IN  ANCIEXT  GLASS  PAINTIXGS,  especially  in  England,  with 
Hints  on  Glass  Painting,  by  the  late  Charles  Win'stox.  With  Correctious  and 
Additions  by  the  Author.     2  vols.,  Medium  8vo.,  cloib,  £1  11s.  6d. 

M.  VI0LLET-LE-DT7C. 
THE  :^ILITARY  ARCHITECTÜRE  OF  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 

Translated  from  the  French  of  M.  Viollet-le-Duc,  by  M.  Macdermott,  Esq., 
Architect.  With  151  original  French  Engravings.  Secojid  Edition,  with  a  Pre- 
face  by  J.  H.  Pabker,  C.B.     Medium  8vo.,  cloth,  10s.  6d. 

JOHN  HEWITT. 

ANCIEXT  ARHOUR  AND  WEAPOXS  i:^  EUROPE.     By  JoHif 

Hewitt.     3  vols.,  8vo.,  £1  11s.  6d. 

PROFESSOR  STTJBBS. 

THE  TRAGT  "DE  IXYEXTIOXE  SAXCT^  CRIJCIS  XOSTR^ 
IN  MONTE  ACUTO  ET  DE  DUCTIONE  EJUSDEM  APUD  WALT- 
HAM,"  now  first  printed  from  the  Manuscript  in  the  British  Museum,  with  In- 
troduction  and  Notes  by  William  Stlbbs,  M.A.  Royal  8vo.,  5s. ;  Demy  8vo., 
3s.  6d. 

THE  PRAYER-BOOK  CALENDAR. 
THE   CALEXDAR   OF   THE   PRAYER-BOOK   ILLTJSTRATED. 

(Comprising  the  first  portion  of  the  "  Caleiidar  of  the  Anglican  Church,"  with 
additional  lUustrations,  an  Appendix  on  Emblems,  &c.)  With  Two  Hundred 
Engravings  from  Medieval  Works  of  Art.     Sixth  Thousand.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cl.,  6s. 

OITR  ENGLISH  HOME; 

Its  Early  History  and  Progress.  With  Xotes  on  the  Introduction  of 
Domestic  Inventions.     New  Edition.     Crown  8vo.,  t>,loth,  3s.  6d. 

PARISH  CHURCH  GOODS  IN  A.D.  1552. 

TNYENTORIES  OF  FURXITURE  and  Ornaments  remaining  in 
certain  of  tlie  Parish  Churche>  of  Berks  in  the  last  year  of  the  reign  of  King 
Edward  the  Sixth  :  Traiiscrihed  Irom  the  Original  Records,  with  Introduction  and 
Explanatory  Notes  by  Walter  Money,  F.S..\.    Crown  8vo.,  limp  cloth,  3s.  6d. 

IXYEXTORY  OF  FURXITURE  and  Ornaments  in  HERTFORD- 

SHIRE,  in  the  last  year  of  the  Reign  of  Edward  VI.  By  J.  E.  Cussans. 
Crown  8vo.,  limp  ciolh,  4s. 


12  ARCHITECTURi:  ANB  ARCSMOLOGT. 


JOHN  HENRY  PARKER,  C.B.,  F.S.A.,  HON.  M.A.  OXON. 
AN  IT^TRODUCTION  TO   THE   STUDY   OF   GOTHIC  ARCHI- 

TECTURE.  SixÜi  Edition,  Revised  and  Enlarged,  with  200  Illustrations, 
with  a  Topographical  and  Glossarial  Index.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  5s. 

A  COXCISE  GLOSSAPtT  OF  TERMS  TSED  IN  GEECIAN, 
ROMAN,  ITALIAN,  AND  GOTHIC  ARCHITECTURE.  A  New 
Edition,  revised.    Fcap.  8vo.,with  470  Illustrations,  in  ornamental  cloth,  7s.  6d. 

A  B  C    OF    GOTHIC    ARCHITECTURE.      Tliird  Edition,   with 

Index,  Square  16mo.,  with  200  Woodcuts,  cloth,  3s. 

"  Architectural  History  can  only  be  understood  by  the  eyes— either  by  seeing  the  buildings 
themselves,  er  accurate  representations  of  tüem  arranged  in  chronological  order  : — Ihis  latter 
bas  been  attempted  in  the  present  werk." 

AN  ATTEMPT  TO  DISCRIMINATE  THE  STYLES  OF  AR- 
CHITECTURE IN  ENGLAND,  from  the  Conquest  to  the  Reformation; 
with  a  Sketch  of  the  Grecian  and  Roman  Orders.  By  the  late  Thomas  Rick- 
MAN,  F. S.A.  Seventh  Edition,  with  considerable  Additions,  chiefly  Historical. 
8vo.,  cloth,  lös. 

DOMESTIC  ARCHITECTURE  OF  THE  MIDDLE  AGES,  FROM 

THE  CONQUEST  TO  HENRY  VIII.  By  the  late  T.Hudson  Turner 
and  John  Henry  Parker,  C.B.  Second  Edition.  4  vols.,  Svo.,  profusely 
Illustrated  with  nearly  400  Wood  and  Steel  Engravings,  füll  General  and  Topo- 
graphical Indices,  &c.,  cloth,  gilt  top,  £3  12s. 

THE   ARCH^OLOGY   OF   ROME. 

'N^"ith  Plates,  Plans,  and  Diagrams. 
Parti.  PRIMITIVE   FORTIFICATIONS.      Second  Edition,   8vo., 

with  59  Plates,  cloth,  21s. 

Part  2.  WALLS  AND  GATES.     Second  Edition,  nearly  ready. 

Part  3.  CONSTRUCTION  OF  WALLS.     Second  Edü.,  in  the  Press. 

Part  4.  THE  EGYPTIAN  OBELISKS.     Second  Edition,  8vo.,  cl.,  5s. 

Parts.  THE  FORUM  ROMAKUM  ET  MAGNUM.     Second  Edit., 

Revised  and  Enlarged,  41  Plates.     8vo.,  cloth,  10s.  6d. 

Part  6.  THE  YIA  SACRA,  was  originally  published  with  Part  5,  it 
will  now  be  separated,  and  the  New  Edition  is  nearly  ready,  with  The  Temple 
OF  RoiiA,  THE  Caput  Yi.e  Sacr;e,  Sacellum  Streniae,  &c. — Also  a  complete 
account  of  the  Excavations  in  Ronie  from  ad.  1485  to  the  Present  Time. 

Part  7.  THE  COLOSSEUM.     36  Plates,  8to.,  cloth,  10s.  6d. 

Parts.  THE   AQUEDUCTS   OF   ANCIENT   ROME.      21  Plates, 

8vo.,  cloth,  15s. 

Part  9.  TOMBS  IN  AND  NEAR  ROME,  and  10.  FUNEREAL 
AND  EARLY  CHRISTIAN  SCULPTURE.     39  Plates,  8vo.,  cloth,  15s. 

Part  11.  CHURCH  AND  ALTAR  DECORATIONS  AND  MOSAIC 

PICTURES  IN   ROME.     20  Plates,  8vo.,  cloth,  10s.  6d. 

Part  12.  THE  CATACOMBS  OF  ROME.     Svo.,  cloth,  15s. 
Part  13.  EARLY  AND  MEDIÄVAL  CASTLES.     Nearly  ready. 
Part  14.  THE  MEDIÄVAL  CHURCHES.     Nearly  ready. 

THE  ARCHITECTURAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  CITY  OF  ROME, 

abridgcd  from  Mr.  Parker's  "Archaeo'ogy  of  Ilomc."  For  Students.  Second 
Edition.     Post  8vo.,  cloth,  witli  Plan  of  llome  and  34  pp.  of  liluitrations,  6s. 


NEW  AND    STANDARD    UDUCATIONAL  WORKS.  13 

THE  ANNALS  OF  ENGLAND.    An  Epitome  of  English  History. 

From  Cotemnorarv  Writers,  the  RoUs  of  Parliament,  atid  otlier  Public  Records. 
A  LIBRA.RY  EDITION,  revised  and  enlarged,  with  additional  Woodcuts. 
8vo.,  half-bound,  12s. 

THE  SCHOOL  EDITION   OF   THE   ANNALS   OE  ENGLAND. 

In  Five  Half-crown  Parts.  1.  Britons,  Romans,  Saxons,  Normans.  2.  The 
Plantagenets.  3.  The  Tudors.  4.  The  Stuarts.  5.  The  Restoration,  to  the 
Death  of  Queen  Anne.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth. 

THE    NEW    SCHOOL  -  HISTORY    OE    ENGLAND,   from   Early 

Writers  and  the  National  Records.  By  the  Author  of  "  The  Annais  of  England." 
Crown  8vo.,  vvilh  Four  Maps,  liinp  cloth,  5s. ;  Coloured  Maps,  half  roan,  6s. 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH  from  its  Foundation 
to  the  Reign  of  Queen  Mary.  By  M.  C.  Stapley.  Fourth  Udition,  revised. 
Crown  8vo.,  cloth  boards,  5s. 

POETARUM   SCENICORUM  GR^CORUM:,   ^schyli,    SophocHs, 

Euripidis,  et  Aristoplianis,  Fabnlas,  Superstites,  et  Perditarum  Fragmenta.  Ex 
recognitione  GUIL.  DINDORFII.     Editio  Quinta.     Royal  8vo.,  cloth,  £1  Is. 

THUCYDIDES,  with  Notes,  chiefly  Historical  and  GeographieaL 
By  the  late  T.  Arnold,  D.D.  With  Indices  by  the  late  Rev.  R.  P.  G.  Tiddeman. 
Eighth  Edition.     3  vols.,  Svo.,  cloth  lettered,  £1   16s. 

JELF'S  GREEK  GRAMMAR.— A  Grammar  of  the  Greek  Language, 
chiefly  from  the  text  of  Raphael  Kühner.  By  Wm.  Edw.  Jelf,  B.D.  Fifth 
Edition,  with  Additions  and  Corrections.    2  vols.  8vo.,  £l  10s. 

MADVIG'S  LATIN  GRAMMAR.     A  Latin  Grammar  for  the  Use 

of  Schools.  By  Professor  Madvig,  with  additions  by  the  Author.  Translated 
by  the  Rev.  G.  Woods,  M.A.  New  Edition,  with  an  Index  of  Author s.  8vo., 
cloth,  12s, 

ERASMI  COLLOQUIA  SELECTA :    Arranged  for  Translation  and 

Re-translation  ;  adapted  for  the  Use  of  Boys  who  have  begun  the  Latin  Syntax. 
By  Edward  C.  Lowe,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Ely,  and  Provost  of  the  College  of 
SS.  Mary  and  John,  Lichfield.     Fcap.  8vo.,  strong  binding,  3s. 

PORTA  LATINA :    A  Selection  from  Latin  Authors,  for  Translation 

and  Re-Translation  ;  arranged  in  a  Progressive  Course,  as  an  Introduction  to 
the  Latin  Tongue.  By  Edward  C.  Lowe,  D.D.,  Editor  of  Erasmus'  "  Collo- 
quies,"  &c.     Fcap.  8vo.,  strongly  bound,  3s. 

A  GRAMMATICAL  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  HEBREW  PSALTER ; 

being  an  Explanatory  Interpretation  of  Every  Word  contained  in  the  Book  of 
Psalms,  intended  chiefly  for  the  Use  of  Beginners  in  the  Study  of  Hebrew.  By 
Joana  Julia  Greswell.     Post  Svo.,  cloth,  6s. 

A   FIRST    LOGIC    BOOK,   by  D.  P.  Chase,   M.A.,   Principal   of 

St.  Marv  Hall,  Oxford.     Smaii  4to.,  sewed,  3s. 

NEW  ÄND  OLD  METHODS  OF  ETHICS,  by  F.  Y.  Edgeworth. 

8vo.,  sewed,  2s. 

Uniform  with  the  Oxford  PocJict  Classics. 

LAWS  OF  THE  GREEK  ACCENTS.    By  John  Griffiths,  D.D., 

Warden  of  Wadham  College,  Oxford.     Sixteenth  Edition.     16mo.,  price  6d. 

RUDIMENTARY  RULES,  with  Examples,  for  the  Use  of  Beginners 
in  Greek  Prose  Composition.  By  Bishop  Mitchinson,  D.C.L.,  late  Head  Master 
of  the  King's  School,  Cantcrbury,     16nio.,  sewed,  Is, 

TWELVE  RUDIMENTARY  RULES  FOR  LATIN  PROSE  COM- 
POSITION :  with  Examples  and  Exercises,  for  the  use  of  Beginners.  By  the 
Rev.E.MooRE,D.D.,Principalof  St. Edmund  Hall, Oxford.  SecondEdlt.\Qmo.,QA. 

THE  ACCIDENCE  of  the  GREEK  VERB  TAUGHT  THROUGH 

INFLEXIONS  and  AN.\LYSIS.  By  S.  J.  Hulme,  M.A.,  formerly  Fellow 
and  Tutor  of  Wadham  College,  Oxford;  Rector  of  Bourton  -  on-lhc-Watur, 
Gloucestershire.     12ö  pp,  16mo.,  in  wrapper,  Is. 


14 


OXFORD  POCKET  CLASSIC 8. 


A  SERIES  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN  CLASSICS 
FOR  THE  USE  OF  SCHOOLS. 


GREEK    POETS. 

Cloth.  I 


iEschylus       .... 
Aristophanes.     2  vols.    . 
Euripides.     3  vols. 
■  Tragoediae  Sex 

GREEK 

Aristotelis  Ethica 
Demosthenes  de  Corona,  et 
jEschines  in  Ctesiphontem 
Herodotus.     2  vols. 


3  0  '  Sophocles 

6  0     Homeri  llias 

6  6  ,  Odyssea 

3  6 

PROSE  WRITERS. 

2  0     Thiicydides.     2  vols. 

2  Q  I  Xenophontis  Memorabilia 

6  0  1 


Anabasis 


Horatius 

Juvenalis  et  Persius 
Lucanus 


LATIN    POETS. 

.  2  0  I  Lucretius 
.  1  6  Pha'drus 
.261  Virgilius 

LATIN  PROSE  WRITERS. 


Csesaris  Commentarii,  cum  Sup- 
plementisAuliHirtiiet  aliorum  2 

Commentarii   de   Belle 

Gallico        .         .         .         .     1 

Cicero  De  Officiis,  de  Senectute, 


et  de  Amicitia    . 


Ciceronis   Tusc.  Disp.  Lib.  V. 

Ciceronis  Orationes  Selectse    . 

Cornelius  Nepos 

Livius.     4  vols. 

Sallustius        .         .         .         . 


Cloth. 
».  d. 
3  0 
3  6 
3     0 


5     0 

1  4 

2  0 


2 

0 

1 

4 

2 

6 

2 

0 

3 

6 

1 

4 

6 

0 

2 

0 

.     2     0     Tacitus.     2  vols. 


5     0 


TEXTS  WITH  SHORT  NOTES. 

UNIFORM  WITH  THE  SERIES  OF  "OXFORD  POCKET  CLASSICS." 


s.  d. 

1  0 

1  0 

1  0 


GREEK  WRITERS.     TEXTS  AN 

SOPHOCLES. 
s.   d. 
.     1     0  1  Antigone  (Ti 

Ajax  {Text  and  Notes) 

Electra            „ 

.     l     0 

Philoctetes 

CEdipus  Rex     ,, 

.     1     0 

TRACHINIiE 

(Edipus  Coloneus  „ 

.     1     0 

The  Notes  only,  in  one  vol.,  cloth,  3s. 


PERSiE  {Text  and  Notes) 
Prometheus  Vinctus 
Septem  Contra  Thebas 
Agamemnon 


iESCHYLUS. 
1     0  1  Choephor^  {Text  and  Notes) 


EUMENIDES 
SUfPLICES 


The  Notes  only,  in  one  vol.,  cloth,  3s.  6d. 

ARISTOPHANES. 
ThkKuights  {Text  and  Notes)       1     0  |  Acuakhi ANS  {Text  and  Notes) 
Tue  BiRDS  {Text  and  Ifoles)  1     0 


1  0 
1  ü 
1     ü 


1     0 


NEW  8ERIBS  OF  JENGLISR  NOTTES. 


15 


Hecuba  {Text  and  Notes) 
Medea                 „ 

.     1 
.     1 

0 
0 

Orestes              ,, 

.     1 

0 

HiPPOLYTUS         ,, 

.     1 

0 

De  Corona  {Text  and  Notes)     . 

HOMERUS, 
Ilias,    LiB.  I. — VI.    {Text   and 
Notes)     .         .         .         .         . 

iESCHINES. 
In    Ctesiphontem   {Text  and 
Notes)  .         .         .         . 


EURIPIDES. 

*•    d.  s.    d. 

FncEyiss/E  {Text  and  Notes)       .     1     0 
Alcestis  ,,  .10 

The  above,  Notes  ouly,  in  one  vol.,  cloth,  3s. 
Bacch^  ,,  .10 

DEMOSTHENES. 

.       2       0    I   Ol.YNTHIAC  OrATIONS  .  .10 

XENOPHON. 
yiE^üRXBiLiA  {Text  and  Notes)       2     6 

ARISTOTLE. 
De    Arte   Poetica    {Text   and 

Acutes)       .  cloth,  2s. ;   sewed  1      6 

2     0      De  Re  Publica     „      3s.         „26 


2     0 


BücOLiCA  {Text  and  Notes) 
Georgica  ,, 


Carmina,  &c.  {Text  and  Notes) 
Satire  „ 


(Text 


LATIN  WEITERS.     TEXTS  AND  NOTES 

VIRGILIUS. 

1  0  I   iExEIDOS,     LiB.     I. — III. 

2  0  I       and  Notes) 
HORATIUS. 

2     0  I  EpisTOLiE  ET  Ars  Poetica  {Text 
1     0  I       and  Notes)         .  .  , 

The  Notes  only,  in  one  vol.,  cloth,  28. 

SALLUSTIUS. 
JüGVRTHA  {Text  and  Notes)       .     1     6  \  Catilina.  {Text  and  Notes)  .      1 

M.  T.  CICERO. 
In  Q.  CvEcilium  —  Divinatio  i    In  Catili's am  {Text  and  Notes)     1 

(Text  and  Notes)     .        .         .10!    Pro  Plancio    .         .         .         , 

In  Verrem  Actio  Prima  .     1     0   i    Pro  Milone     .... 

Pro    Lege    Manilia,    et   Pro  Pro  Roscio        .... 

Archia  .         .         .         .10      Orationes  Philippic^,  L,  II. 

The  above,  Notes  only,  in  one  vol.,  cloth,  3s.  6d. 

De  Senectute  et  De  Aüicitia    1     0  |   Epistol^e  Select^e.     Pars  l. 

CORNELIUS    NEPOS 


1     0 


1     0 


C^SAR. 
De  Bello  Gallico,  Lib.i. — in. 

{Text  and  Notes)    .         .         .10 

LIVIUS. 
LiB.  XXI. — XXIV.  (Tea;^  and  Notes) 

sewed 4     0 

Ditto  in  cloth      .         .         .         .46 


Lives  {Text  and  Notes) 

PH.EDRUS. 
Fabul^  {Text  and  Notes) 

TACITUS. 
The  Annals.  Notes  only,  2vols., 
\6mo.,  cloth     .... 


1 

0 

1 

6 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

6 

1 

6 

1 

6 

1     0 


Portions  ofseveral  other  Authors  are  inpreparation. 


Uniform  tvith  the  Oxford  PocJcet  Classics. 
THE   LIYES   OF   THE  MOST    EMINENT   ENGLISH    POETS, 
WITH    CRITICAL    OBSERVATIONS    ON    THEIR   WORKS.     By    Sa- 
muel Johnson.     3  vols.,  24mo.,  cloth,  2s.  6d.  each. 

THE  LIVES  OF  DEYDEN  AND  POPE,  with  Critical  Observations 

on  their  Works.     Bv  Samuel  Johnson.     24mo.,  cloth.  Is.  6d. 

THE  SIX  CHIEF  LIVES  OF  THE  POETS :  MILTON,  DRYDEN, 

SWIFT,  ADDISON.  POPE,  and  GRAY.      Bv  S.  Johnson.    24mo.,  cloth.  3s. 

CHOICE   EXTRACTS   FROM   MODERN  FRENCH   AUTHORS, 
for  the  use  of  Schools.     18mo.,  cloth,  Is. 


16  BOOKS,  Sfc,  RELATINQ  TO  OXFORD. 

SELECTIONS  from  the  EECOEDS  of  the  CITY  OF   OXFORD, 

with  Extracts  from  otlier  Documents  illiistrating  the  Municipal  History : 
Henry  VIII.  to  Elizabeth  [1509—1583].  Edited,  by  authority  of  the  Cor- 
poration of  the  City  of  Oxford,  by  the  late  William  H.  Turner,  of  the 
Bodleian  Library;  under  the  direction  of  Robert  S.  Hawkins,  late  Town 
Clerk.     Royal  8vo.,  cloth,  £1   Is. 

A  HAXDBOOK  FOR  YISITORS  TO  OXFORD.     lUustrated  with 

numerous  Woodcuts  by  Jewitt,  and  Steel  Plates  by  Le  Keux.  A  New  Edition, 
8vo.,  cloth,  12s, 

THE  YISITOR'S  GriDE  TO  OXFORD.     ^Ith  110  Illustrations 

and  a  coloured  Plan.      Post  8vo.,  in  ornamental  wrapper,  Is.  ;  cloth,  2s. 

THE  OXFORD  UXIYERSITY  CALEXDAR  for  1882.     Corrected 

to  the  end  of  December,  1881.     12mo.,  cloth,  4s.  6(i. 

THE  OXFORD  TEX-YEAR  BOOK :  A  Complete  Register  of  Uni- 
versity  Honours  and  Distinctions,  made  up  to  the  end  of  the  Year  1870. 
Crown  8vo.,  roan,  äs. 

"WYKEHAMICA  :  a  History  of  "Wincliester  College  and  Commoners, 
from  the  Foundation  to  the  Present  Day.  By  the  Rev.  H.  C.  ADAMS,  M.A., 
late  FfcUow  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford.  Post  8vo.,  cloth,  508  pp.,  with 
Kineteen  Illustrations,  10s.  6d. 

HISTORICAL  TALES 

Illustrating  the  Chief  Events  in  lEcclesiastical  History,  British  and  Foreign. 

29  Numbers  at  One  Shilling  each,  limp  cloth  ;  or  arranged  in 
Six  Volumes,  cloth  lettered,  3s.  6d.   each. 

ADDITIONAL  VOLUMES   TO   THE   SERIES. 

ENGL.\ND  :  Mediaeval  Period.  Containing  The  Orphan  of  Evesham,  or  The 
Jews  and  the  Mendicant  Orders. — Mark's  "Wedding,  or  Lollardy. — The  White 
Rose  of  Lynden,  or  The  Monks  and  the  Bible. — The  Prior's  Ward,  or  The 
Broken  Unity  of  the  Church.  By  the  Rev.  H.  C.  Adams,  Vicar  of  Dry  Sand- 
ford; Author  of  "  Wilton  of  Cutlibert's,"  "  Schoolboy  Honour,"  &c.  With  Four 
Illustrations  on  Wood.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  3s.  6d- 

THE  ANDEEDS-WEALD,  oe  THE  HOUSE  OF  MICHELHAM :  A  Tale  of 
the  Norman  Conquest.  By  the  Rev.  A.  D.  Crake,  B..\.,  Fellow  of  the  Royal 
Historical  Society  ;  Author  of  "  iEinilius,"  "  Alfgar  the  Dane,"  &c.  With  Four 
Illustrations  by  LouiSA  Taylor.     Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  3s.  6d. 

CHEAPEPt  ISSÜE  OE  TALES  EOß  TOUNG  MEN 
AXD  WOMEX. 

In  Six  Half-crown  Tols.,  cloth. 
Vol.  I.  contains  F.  E.  Paget's  Mother  and  Son,  Wanted  a  Wife,  and  Hobson's 
Choice. 

Vol.  II.  F.  E.  Paget's  Windycote  Hall,  Squitch,  Tenants  at  Tinkers'  End. 
Vol.  III.  W.  E.  Heygate's  Two  Cottages,  The  Sisttrs,  and  Old  Jarvis's  Will. 
Vol.  IV.  W.   E.   Heygate's  James  Bright  the  Shopman,  The  Politician,  Ir- 
revocable. 

Vol.  V.  R.  King's  The  Strike,  and  Jonas  Clint;  N.  Brown's  Two  to  One,  and 
False  Honour. 

Vol.  VI.  J.  M.  Neale's  Railway  Accident ;  E.  Monro's  The  Recruit.  Susan, 
Servants'  Influence,  .Mary  Thomas,  or  Dissent  at  Evenly  ;  H.  Hayman's  Caroline 
Elton,  or  Vanity  and  Jealousy. 

Each  Volume  is  bound  as  a  distinct  and  cotnplete  worJc,  and  sold 
separately  for  Pbesenis. 


to 

H 

O 

in 


'S 

cc 


o 


üniversity  of  Toronto 
Library 


Acme  Library  Card  Pocket 
LOWE-MARTIN  CO.  UMIted